NXS 2.5-10x24 or …

[passinggas33]

So Nightforce is going to do a limited run on the 2.5-10x24. I am trying to come up with a better solution for my ultralight kimber mtn ascent. Currently I have the SWFA 2.5-10x32. My only two problems with it are the lack of a true dialing turret and the eye relief. Am I wasting my time by trying to get one of the limited run NXS scopes? It appears to have a fixed parallax but has better eye relief. Is the 24mm objective going to be this much more significant than the 32? I usually shoot out to 600 max so the magnification is fine. Just concerned about the parallax and the objective. Thoughts??? Thanks guys!

 

[rifletuner]

Its good to see this scope will be making some form of reappearance. Out to 600 yards, I think it will be a great choice. The objective will be fine for everything but low light conditions. Lack of adjustable parallax would not be a deal breaker for me.

 

[passinggas33]

I just saw the price tag online . I figured it was going to come in at least the same price as the 2.5-10x42, or maybe even a little cheaper. But instead it’s more money. With the discount you can get on the 42 I might just go that route. But then again, I’m chasing ounces

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

I just saw the price tag online . I figured it was going to come in at least the same price as the 2.5-10x42, or maybe even a little cheaper. But instead it’s more money. With the discount you can get on the 42 I might just go that route. But then again, I’m chasing ounces

I was surprised as well, though I imagine they will sell. Would be hard for me to justify the price for 2oz, less low light performance and no parallax adjustment over the 42.

 

[passinggas33]

I was surprised as well, though I imagine they will sell. Would be hard for me to justify the price for 2oz, less low light performance and no parallax adjustment over the 42.

I thought the 24 was 16oz and the 42 was 20oz. Did you see some different numbers than this? Cause if it really is only 2oz I’m out for sure.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

After extensive experience with Mil-R, I think that’s a terrible reticle choice for this optic.
I can’t imagine using such a thin reticle in anything but perfect light with a 24 mm objective.

They should have offered the FC-DMx, or atleast the Mil Dot that I have in my NXS 2.5-10x32.

 

[berretsteve]

I have 9 nightforce nxs scopes on rifles ..used for hunting /target shooting under extreme conditions from rain to snow to heat and freezing rain.. its pricy but it gives a certain assurance.

 

[justinspicher]

I have three of the 2.5-10x32 models and I love them. I wouldn’t hesitate to get a 2.5-10x24, but I would have to build another rifle.

 

[passinggas33]

I have three of the 2.5-10x32 models and I love them. I wouldn’t hesitate to get a 2.5-10x24, but I would have to build another rifle.

The 32 has a fixed parallax. Any issues with that out to 6-700 yards?

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

I thought the 24 was 16oz and the 42 was 20oz. Did you see some different numbers than this? Cause if it really is only 2oz I’m out for sure.

I was just going off MileHigh website as that who emailed me about the 24. They have the 42 non-illuminated at 19oz and the 24 at 17oz

 

[justinspicher]

PG33,

So far I haven’t had any issues shooting that far. Mine are all on AR platforms. 16” 556 and an 18” 6ARC.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

After extensive experience with Mil-R, I think that’s a terrible reticle choice for this optic.
I can’t imagine using such a thin reticle in anything but perfect light with a 24 mm objective.

They should have offered the FC-DMx, or atleast the Mil Dot that I have in my NXS 2.5-10x32.

Truth. NF reticles are truly lacking.

If they are going to leave things SFP with the NXS, they should take the Forceplex inner cross out to 2.5 mil on each quad (at 10x), add standard dot at 1 and 2 mils, hash at .5 and 1.5, tip of outer plex at 2.5. Run it at 10x with mil and .5 mil holds...use it at 5x where every dot and hash would be 1 mil like a standard mildot. Make sure the outer posts are solid and inner bold enough to use....the Forceplex subtensions aren't bad. Illuminate only a dot on the crosshair intersection. Of course...adjustments should be mil. Call it the MilForce Hunter and make it available in the NXS and SHV SFP models.

I use a lot of their scopes, but at times I wonder if NF does some of the things they do just to piss hunters off.

 

[passinggas33]

I was just going off MileHigh website as that who emailed me about the 24. They have the 42 non-illuminated at 19oz and the 24 at 17oz

If that’s the case, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze for me. 4oz difference maybe. 2oz, nope.

 

[roymunson]

either chase the ounces or save the money... Can't have both.

I like my 2.5-10x42

But if you wanna be ultra light, spend the money. I'd rather just leave the toothbrush at home.

 

[packgoatguy]

I was just going off MileHigh website as that who emailed me about the 24. They have the 42 non-illuminated at 19oz and the 24 at 17oz

Nightforce specs the 2.5-10x42 at 20.5oz, the 32mm version at 19oz, and the 24mm version at 17oz. All three have illuminated reticle I believe. All three have zero-stop turrets. All three are SFP. Only the 42mm version has the adjustable parallax. My 42mm version weighed in exactly at 20.5oz on my scale. The SWFA scopes I've had always came in a bit over-weight.

 

[passinggas33]

Nightforce specs the 2.5-10x42 at 20.5oz, the 32mm version at 19oz, and the 24mm version at 17oz. All three have illuminated reticle I believe. All three have zero-stop turrets. All three are SFP. Only the 42mm version has the adjustable parallax. My 42mm version weighed in exactly at 20.5oz on my scale. The SWFA scopes I've had always came in a bit over-weight.

Thanks for the precise weights. It seems like the 42 is probably the best “value”. Only 3oz more, $400 cheaper (with coupon codes), and bigger objective. The only thing that the 24 has going is that the eye relief, on paper, is 1/2” better. And maybe a little more versatile to mount due to not having an objective bell to worry about.

 

[packgoatguy]

Nightforce apparently specs the 24mm version at 16.7oz

2.5-10x24mm - Nightforce Optics

The Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x24mm riflescope was originally designed for Special Purpose Rifles (SPR) to enhance the capabilities of marksmen for target

www.nightforceoptics.com

42mm version: 20.5oz

NXS - 2.5-10x42mm - Nightforce Optics

OUR 2.5-10 X 42 NXS™ COMPACT IS THE BIGGEST, BADDEST LITTLE SCOPE ON THE MARKET.

www.nightforceoptics.com

The 24mm version will have slightly better eye relief and field of view, and will be 3.8oz lighter in weight, and is shorter in length.

The 42mm will have better exit pupil/low light performance and adjustable parallax.

Exit pupil 4.4-15.5 vs 2.5-9.7
Eye relief 3.3 vs 3.8
Field of view 11-44 vs 10.5-45.5
Both are .25moa/.1mil clicks (whereas the NX8 1-8x24 is .5moa/.2mil clicks)

 

[packgoatguy]

Thanks for the precise weights. It seems like the 42 is probably the best “value”. Only 3oz more, $400 cheaper (with coupon codes), and bigger objective. The only thing that the 24 has going is that the eye relief, on paper, is 1/2” better. And maybe a little more versatile to mount due to not having an objective bell to worry about.

I'm in a similar boat to you. I have an SWFA 2.5-10x32 on my uberlite build. It has been reliable enough, but I find myself wanting the dialing turrets... I can get reasonably precise holdovers with the bdc reticle (using my ballistic app to tell me which zoom power to use at various ranges to get more precise) but it's slow and easy to make an error. I have the NXS 2.5-10x42 on a different rifle, and have loved everything about that scope. As far as I can tell, the only reason it doesn't get more "love" on Rokslide is because it's not FFP... which in my opinion is a non issue for my purposes... I don't need to hold for wind under 200 yards, and anything further out I'm at the max 10x zoom...

However, the 11oz weight penalty jump from 9.5oz to 20.5oz is a hurdle for me when ive made so many other compromises to shave every gram.

One point of note... the swfa ultralight 2.5-10x32 really has a hard time at low light... I have a hard time making out targets at the end of shooting light. The 42mm nxs though, does great. I should do a test sometime side by side to see how much longer past dark I can see with the nxs... but it seems significant. I wonder if the 30mm tube in the 24mm nxs will give it any advantage over the 1 inch swfa tube in low light conditions?? Inspite of the smaller objective lense.

 

[justinspicher]

I don’t mind the reticles, to me, they seem pretty simple and straight forward. I am not a “tree” style reticle fan. I dont want my reticles too busy. One of my x32 scopes has the velocity 600 reticle and the other is an MOAR. I enjoy using both of them.

I will agree, the scopes are expensive, but worth it to me for the reliability and durability. We can all pick out something we dont like about any scope, regardless who makes it.

 

[passinggas33]

I'm in a similar boat to you. I have an SWFA 2.5-10x32 on my uberlite build. It has been reliable enough, but I find myself wanting the dialing turrets... I can get reasonably precise holdovers with the bdc reticle (using my ballistic app to tell me which zoom power to use at various ranges to get more precise) but it's slow and easy to make an error. I have the NXS 2.5-10x42 on a different rifle, and have loved everything about that scope. As far as I can tell, the only reason it doesn't get more "love" on Rokslide is because it's not FFP... which in my opinion is a non issue for my purposes... I don't need to hold for wind under 200 yards, and anything further out I'm at the max 10x zoom...

However, the 11oz weight penalty jump from 9.5oz to 20.5oz is a hurdle for me when ive made so many other compromises to shave every gram.

One point of note... the swfa ultralight 2.5-10x32 really has a hard time at low light... I have a hard time making out targets at the end of shooting light. The 42mm nxs though, does great. I should do a test sometime side by side to see how much longer past dark I can see with the nxs... but it seems significant. I wonder if the 30mm tube in the 24mm nxs will give it any advantage over the 1 inch swfa tube in low light conditions?? Inspite of the smaller objective lense.

This is the exact dilemma I’m in. Same exact scope. And same issues I have. Eye relief is rough at highest power and I really am so used to dialing for distance with all of my other scopes the swfa always leaves me wanting that. But 11 ounces is a big loss when trying to stay uberlite.

And then to just muddy the waters even more…I have the Trijicon Credo HX on ALL of my other guns and it is only 3 ounces heavier than the NXS 42. And that’s $700 cheaper still. So do I just say if I’m going to “add weight”, do I just add this scope instead due to familiarity and cost. Analysis Paralysis? Mental Masturbation? Call it what you want, but I’m really struggling deciding.