Talk me out of a Nightforce NX8 1-8x10

[wind gypsy]

If the SHV had an exposed elevation turret and came in Mil, there would be little reason for the NXS 2.5-10 to exist anymore. That said, I won't buy an SHV 3-10 because it doesn't have those two features. If you don't intend to shoot beyond MPBR while hunting the SHV is an easy choice.

 

[Ram94]

If the SHV had an exposed elevation turret and came in Mil, there would be little reason for the NXS 2.5-10 to exist anymore. That said, I won't buy an SHV 3-10 because it doesn't have those two features. If you don't intend to shoot beyond MPBR while hunting the SHV is an easy choice.

My thoughts are, if you need to shoot past mbpr then you 100% have 3 extra seconds to spin the cap off. If not, then it’s probably not a smart choice to shoot anyways. Some guys just leave the cap off though as it’s still waterproof without it. Just don’t go diving regularly without it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

My thoughts are, if you need to shoot past mbpr then you 100% have 3 extra seconds to spin the cap off. If not, then it’s probably not a smart choice to shoot anyways. Some guys just leave the cap off though as it’s still waterproof without it. Just don’t go diving regularly without it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't 100% have 3 seconds. 3 seconds might be the window of opportunity you had before that animal walked out of a clear shot opportunity. The same argument can be said for a bunch of things "If you don't have 10 seconds to attach a bipod" "if you dont have time to range and enter data in to ballistic app/kestrel" etc. But in the end any time wasted could be the time that makes a difference.

I've read that NF reps say the SHV loses it's waterproof rating with caps removed.

In most cases you're probably right and there is no issue. In most cases a lighter leupold probably wont have zero retention or tracking issues either.

 

[Marbles]

If the SHV had an exposed elevation turret and came in Mil, there would be little reason for the NXS 2.5-10 to exist anymore. That said, I won't buy an SHV 3-10 because it doesn't have those two features. If you don't intend to shoot beyond MPBR while hunting the SHV is an easy choice.

Mil would be nice, milliradians (and metric in general) are just easier for doing math in ones head. The complicating factor is just that so much of what I and everyone around me uses every day is the imperial system that it is hard to use metric enough that I don't need to make an approximation to imperial units in my head.

I see the exposed turret as more of a liability for my style of use; being lots of travel with infrequent shooting. If I miss taking a long shot due to not getting a cap off in time, I can comfortably live with it. However if I wound an animal within MPBR (250 yards) because the turret was spun and I did not take the time to check it, I'm left with a long day of tracking, questioning how ethically I hunt, and loosing a tag (in AK an animal that is not recovered is still considered part of the bag limit). To my figuring, if I develop the habit of checking a turret before every shot, I'm more likely to miss taking a shot within MPBR due to the added second of lag, than I am past MPBR due to an added 3 seconds to take the cap off. This is because, where I hunt, close in shots are more likely to be in thick vegetation with a narrow shooting lane, while longer shots are more likely to be in open alpine. I also figure the closer an animal is, the more likely it is to get spooked.

That said, I know lots of people use exposed turrets successfully. I just believe Murphy is alive, well, and lives in every piece of equipment I own; so I spend a lot of time trying to keep him at bay.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

I lost all confidence shooting beyond 300-400 yards until I got my first SHV...the 4-14X56 had me ringing steel at 1000 yards for the first time ever. That was on the same day I sighted it in. I have another 5-20X56 going on a new rifle that can reach out further. My question is, would you prefer to shoot longer distances if you felt confident you could hold a tight group? BTW...I went shooting with a competitive shooter and he told me that of all the companies making riflescopes, NF was the toughest and most reliable and if (unlikely if) I ever needed to have my scope serviced, I'd get it back quickly whereas some companies make you ship to Europe and wait months for repairs. NF was a week. I have also found the scope to be amazingly clear in very low light conditions when i am most likely to squeeze the trigger.

 

[Formidilosus]

SHV 3-10x42.
Up sides: Price. Forceplex reticle. I have heard the glass is on par with the NXS.
Down sides: It is the heaviest of the three at 22.2 oz, it has the highest low range magnification, the SHV line is Nightforces lower end offering and probably is not as durable as the NXS and NX8. MOA only. Second focal plane (none issue with Forceplex reticle)

Outside of purposely trying to break it, there are not generally any durability issues with SHV’s. A SFP duplex reticle scope isn’t anything that I, or anyone I shoot with is interested in, however I have used them quite a bit. As a real set and forget scope it’s probably the best on the market all things considered.

3x versus 2.5x is not a thing to consider, you wouldn’t know which was which by looking through them.

NXS 2.5-10x42.
Up sides: Solid reputation for durability. Available in mil/mil. 2.5x is a little lower than 3x for brush. 10x upper limit magnification with a precise reticle.
Down sides: Price. Has the shortest eye relief of the three at 3.3 inches. Comes in at 20.5 oz. Second focal plane

With mil/mil and 42mm objective this is probably the best option of the three for generally hunting. SFP is still a compromise, but being mil/mil this is certainly better.

NX8 1-8x24
Up sides: Designed to be durable. Lightest at 17.0 oz. Longest eye relief at 3.7 inches. True 1x low magnification for fast shooting in brush if needed. Best glass out of the three. First focal plane. Available in mil/mil. Lowest profile of the three.
Down sides: Price. Center dot is large at 1.25 MOA (0.35 MRAD), covering over 6 inches at 500 yards. Meaning hold overs would need to be used for precision past about 200 yards. Coarse adjustments at 0.5 MOA or 0.2 MRAD. While very minor, I like the look of an objective bell.

The NX8 is a unique scope. It could, and has worked for normal hunting, but isn’t ideal for all uses. There are compromises that have to be made to have an 8x erector in that short and small of a scope. 1-6x’ish is good, a bit of fall off optically from 6-8x in clarity and brightness of course- still completely usable, just noticeable. The dot is larger than I would prefer, however trouble with precision isn’t a real problem. I have shot tens of thousands of rounds at 12” targets from 300-1280 meters with them. It is the lightest truly durable and reliable scope I have used.




Having said that, with your stated use passing by the SFP NF’s is an easy thing to grab a SWFA SS 3-9x42mm. Reliable and durable, FFP, best mil reticle for hunting in the business, 19oz, sub $600.

If the 1x-whatever is open, the SS 1-6x HD should be looked at. Again, excellent reliability and durability, they function correctly, and the reticle from 4-6x is better than the NX8.

 

[Marbles]

My question is, would you prefer to shoot longer distances if you felt confident you could hold a tight group?

Yes. Right now I'm trying to figure out if I simply cannot shoot a light rifle, or if there is a problem somewhere. When I first sighted the Kimber in, I got a couple 1 inch groups at 100 yards (this is the limit of my skill, so not a reflection of the rifle). However, now I cannot get a group under 3 inches with the same ammunition, even though sight picture appears good before it is lost under recoil. Has me wondering if I should move away from the Talley Lightweight mounts as well, or just bed them with marine text and throw some rubber cement on the scope.

 

[Marbles]

Having said that, with your stated use passing by the SFP NF’s is an easy thing to grab a SWFA SS 3-9x42mm. Reliable and durable, FFP, best mil reticle for hunting in the business, 19oz, sub $600.

If the 1x-whatever is open, the SS 1-6x HD should be looked at. Again, excellent reliability and durability, they function correctly, and the reticle from 4-6x is better than the NX8.

Is the variable eye relief of the SWFA SS 3-9x42 (4.13-3.03 inches) ever an issue in practice? I was thinking that having to alter cheek weld could result in consistency issues, which is why I stopped considering it as an option. Is the SS 3-9 submersible? I don't plan on swimming with it, but accidental submersion while fording a river or getting out of a boat is a possibility. There was a thread on 24hr campfire where someone said the SS 3-9 filled with water when submerged in a sink. The SS HD 1-6 specifically says it is submersible, I will have to give that scope a closer look as I had not considered it.

They are not built identically, similar but not the same. The major difference is the testing that every NXS/ATACR/BEAST goes through before it leaves the factory.


The SHV’s are probably in the running for the second most reliable scopes made.

I'm curious if you have any more insight on the above given that almost two years have passed since you wrote it (28th August, 2018). Nightforce does not differentiate between the SHV and other scopes on their page about quality. The quote above is one of the things that has me considering the NXS and NX8 over the SHV.

It only makes sense that something cheaper cannot be equivalent across the board, and cutting out the expense of testing individual units would certainly offer a savings without having to compromise on design.

Thank you for the recommendations. Between the Nightforce scopes I feel it is just figuring out which compromises, between what I would like and what is available, I most want to live with. With other scopes I have to figure out if there are any compromises I'm unwilling to live with.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is the variable eye relief of the SWFA SS 3-9x42 (4.13-3.03 inches) ever an issue in practice? I was thinking that having to alter cheek weld could result in consistency issues, which is why I stopped considering it as an option. Is the SS 3-9 submersible? I don't plan on swimming with it, but accidental submersion while fording a river or getting out of a boat is a possibility. There was a thread on 24hr campfire where someone said the SS 3-9 filled with water when submerged in a sink. The SS HD 1-6 specifically says it is submersible, I will have to give that scope a closer look as I had not considered it.

Eye relief is not an issue. They only way you would notice a slightly changing eye relief is if you find a target in the scope on low power and then turn the mag up... and that’s a sub par way to manipulate a rifle.


Yes, they are waterproof. I haven’t seen any thread about one leaking due a boat spill- do you have a link?

Durability, etc... It’s a good bet that no one will abuse a scope as much as the dozens of SWFA HD’s I have seen. I have multiple 2.5-10x NXS’s sitting in a closet, while 3-9x SWFA’s are on guns. Those I shoot with have the same, and yet are choosing the SS over the NXS’s every time.

I'm curious if you have any more insight on the above given that almost two years have passed since you wrote it (28th August, 2018).

The SHV is solid. They are not built to be literally bombproof, but they are good. No one cares about a static zero more than I, and I have no issues using an SHV save the SFP.

 

[Marbles]

Yes, they are waterproof. I haven’t seen any thread about one leaking due a boat spill- do you have a link?

Failures & known issues -- SWFA SS scopes

I'd like to discuss failures and known issues of SS scopes by SWFA, both fixed and variables. Please share any failures or issues you've had with them, such as tracking, failure to hold zero, reticle subtension errors, or even lesser issues. If you must, include pet peeves such as turret...

www.24hourcampfire.com

7th post on 1st page by Kentuckymountainman. Not the most reliable or convincing. Nor did he specifically say it was an SS 3-9x42 either, just an SWFA SS. As the SWFA product page does not say on the SS 3-9x42, but does on the SS HD 1-6x24 it left me wondering if there was a difference.

Eye relief is not an issue. They only way you would notice a slightly changing eye relief is if you find a target in the scope on low power and then turn the mag up... and that’s a sub par way to manipulate a rifle.

Good to know. I always hunted with irons as a kid, and have only used a fixed power scope on my guns as an adult, so I did not realize that turning up the magnification once on target was poor technique.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the two NF lines: https://riflescope-review.com/a-comparison-of-the-nightforce-shv-vs-nxs-scope-models/

What platform are you shooting from? For sighting in rifles off a bench I find nothing beats the Bulls Bag X7. It locks your rifle in place for the tightest possible groups. Of course, anyone can have an "off day" and shoot poorly. Things like stress, elevated BP and/or rapid pulse, slight dehydration, etc...can take a toll. Not always a "gun fix" kinda thing.

 

[Formidilosus]

Failures & known issues -- SWFA SS scopes

I'd like to discuss failures and known issues of SS scopes by SWFA, both fixed and variables. Please share any failures or issues you've had with them, such as tracking, failure to hold zero, reticle subtension errors, or even lesser issues. If you must, include pet peeves such as turret...

www.24hourcampfire.com

7th post on 1st page by Kentuckymountainman. Not the most reliable or convincing. Nor did he specifically say it was an SS 3-9x42 either, just an SWFA SS. As the SWFA product page does not say on the SS 3-9x42, but does on the SS HD 1-6x24 it left me wondering if there was a difference.

Pretty safe bet you could file that post and opinion in the BS category.

The original SS scopes were designed to compete and win a Navy Crane Sniper optic contract. They did. They have only been improved since SWFA bought the rights to them.

There is enough information about the SWFA scopes out there if you want it.

Good to know. I always hunted with irons as a kid, and have only used a fixed power scope on my guns as an adult, so I did not realize that turning up the magnification once on target was poor technique.

It’s just slow. While one person is playing with a power ring, another has already killed the animal.

See target, turn power to what you need as you are getting into position, bring scope straight into the target, shoot.

 

[Marbles]

What platform are you shooting from? For sighting in rifles off a bench I find nothing beats the Bulls Bag X7. It locks your rifle in place for the tightest possible groups. Of course, anyone can have an "off day" and shoot poorly. Things like stress, elevated BP and/or rapid pulse, slight dehydration, etc...can take a toll. Not always a "gun fix" kinda thing.

I'm shooting from a bench using a sling, no sand bags, so the bench is stabilizing me, but I'm all that is stabilizing the rifle. It certainly could be me. The first range trip it shot tight, then opened up. I assumed it was the thin barrel of the Kimber getting hot. The second range trip had the issue the entire time, with my best group being my last one at about 3 inches, off hand. So I certainly need to go shoot it some more.

In the past, with a number of other rifles, I have not had a problem shooting groups tighter than 2 inches in the same fashion. All of those where heavier than the Kimber at 6 lb 2 oz, so I'm inclined to think I just need to practice more. I've been wanting a new scope before this though, and adding 7-12 oz cannot hurt if I am the problem. The Weaver is a 1 inch tube, and everything I am looking at is 30mm, so I will need new rings regardless. Will probably get another set of Talley Lightweights, but am open to other suggestions.

Unfortunately I don't have a friend who I know can shoot light rifles to hand it to.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Lighter isn't always better. Sure it's easier to get up the mountain but that added recoil can and will spoil your groups some. I find my rifles weighing between 9-10lbs (scoped) are my most reliable shooters in real world hunting situations. Stick with it, at least your offhand groups are easy kill shots so there's that. Option B is to dial down the FPS a bit and shoot tamer ammo and/or add a muzzle brake.

 

[Marbles]

Lighter isn't always better. Sure it's easier to get up the mountain but that added recoil can and will spoil your groups some. I find my rifles weighing between 9-10lbs (scoped) are my most reliable shooters in real world hunting situations. Stick with it, at least your offhand groups are easy kill shots so there's that. Option B is to dial down the FPS a bit and shoot tamer ammo and/or add a muzzle brake.

I would like to practice with tamer ammo. Spending less money on a scope and using what I save to get a reloading set up might be a more valuable investment. Which makes Formidilosus suggestion of the SWFA 3-9x42 even more tempting. Especially considering that it does not have the weakness I was concerned about.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I love my nxs 2.5-10, it’s been a nice upgrade from
My shv 3-10.

 

[tdot]

I was looking at similar scopes a year ago. I chose the NXS 2.5-10 over the NX8 primarily due to concerns over the NX8 eye box being smaller. I still haven't handled one of the scopes in person to know for sure but I didnt want a scope with finicky eyebox on a mountain rifle, where steep shots and quick brush shots are common. Hopefully I'll get my hands on an NX8 to see for myself, as there is alot to like about that scope otherwise.

I have been very happy with the NXS and will likely be replacing other scopes with the same model, or the NX8.

 

[pyrotechnic]

This isn't particular to the NX8, but I would have no issues running a quality LPVO on a lightweight hunting gun.
I set up a Ruger American Predator, with an SWFA 1-6 for a a practical rifle class. The below targets were shot prone of a pack to demonstrate the difference between a 100yd and 200 yd zero.


Practical accuracy out to 400 yds is a non issue. You give up some low light capability at the higher magnification in exchange for your low end and light weight.

 

[zion zig zag]

On the SHV scope, would you rather have the illuminated reticle/fixed parallax, or the non-illuminated and adjustable parallax? Is the fixed parallax good enough out to 500?

 

[slim9300]

You don't 100% have 3 seconds. 3 seconds might be the window of opportunity you had before that animal walked out of a clear shot opportunity. The same argument can be said for a bunch of things "If you don't have 10 seconds to attach a bipod" "if you dont have time to range and enter data in to ballistic app/kestrel" etc. But in the end any time wasted could be the time that makes a difference.

I've read that NF reps say the SHV loses it's waterproof rating with caps removed.

In most cases you're probably right and there is no issue. In most cases a lighter leupold probably wont have zero retention or tracking issues either.

This is not accurate since I had a 5-20x56 SHV kept uncapped for years in soaking conditions. Never fogged up, nor did it ever have any tracking issues. The new 5-20 SHV comes uncapped though.

Now I have a 4-32x50 NX8.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk