Anyone wish they would have bought the NX8 4-32x50 over the 2.5-20?

[jbur13]

I'm going to buy a scope this week and wondering if anyone has wished they would have gotten the Nightforce NX8 4-32 over the 2.5-20?
Nightforce website says they are very close in weight but I see the 4-32 is over an inch longer. I like the compactness of the 2.5-20 but on those occasions that you need a little more power it might be nice. It's going on a 300 rum.
Or I could say, who owns a 2.5-20 and feels it's totally adequate for acquiring targets between 500 and a 1000Yds?
Thx-

 

[Huntnpack]

I've owned both. Had a 4-32 F1 on my Seekins Element, Nice optic. When they invented the NX8 F2 I opted to switch
As I prefer 2nd Focal. Opted for the
2.5-20x50 f2. More compact, better fit
for my rifle. Very happy with it,
& totally adequate to 1000 yds.

 

[MagMan]

I've shot steel with a 10x at 1000 yards. 20 is plenty but I love my 32x NX8.

 

[Varmint Hunter]

I've got a Nightforce 12-42x56 on a heavy varmint rifle. I've shot groundhogs out to 1,000 yds with that rig and doubt that I ever used/needed more then 20x.

 

[Rick Richard]

I use the 32X more for being able to judge animals at longer distances, not for shooting though.

 

[shooters]

4-32 is sooo much nicer than the 2.5-20 optically IMO. Especially getting behind it. And I own both.

 

[livetohunt]

I'm looking at getting the 4-32... have any of you guys had issues with it having a tight or unforgiving eyebox?

 

[shooters]

I'm looking at getting the 4-32... have any of you guys had issues with it having a tight or unforgiving eyebox?

Yup. Parallax is touchy and eye box is tight....obviously gets worse as magnification goes up. But that's where the 4-32 IMO is better than the 2.5-20. That's why I kept the 4-32. It was better in those two areas. Still not great, but manageable.

 

[brentc]

After owning and using both scopes, from magnification range to mounting ergonomics, the 4-32 is the more versatile scope.

I wouldn't even consider a 2.5-20 for a 300 RUM, or any long action for that matter. The ergonomics of the 2.5-20 make it really difficult to properly set eye relief on anything other than short actions. Getting the eye relief right with these scopes is critical to minimize the eye box issues many guys have.

 

[jbur13]

4-32 is sooo much nicer than the 2.5-20 optically IMO. Especially getting behind it. And I own both.

That's the feedback I'm looking for thank you-

Yup. Parallax is touchy and eye box is tight....obviously gets worse as magnification goes up. But that's where the 4-32 IMO is better than the 2.5-20. That's why I kept the 4-32. It was better in those two areas. Still not great, but manageable.

What power do you normally shoot from at distance with the 4-32? I have another nightforce and usually dial that down about 4 from max for best eye box.

 

[shooters]

That's the feedback I'm looking for thank you-



What power do you normally shoot from at distance with the 4-32? I have another nightforce and usually dial that down about 4 from max for best eye box.

I usually shoot around that 20-25 power when 600 and farther. 32 is nice but not a chance you'll see impact.

 

[jbur13]

After owning and using both scopes, from magnification range to mounting ergonomics, the 4-32 is the more versatile scope.

I wouldn't even consider a 2.5-20 for a 300 RUM, or any long action for that matter. The ergonomics of the 2.5-20 make it really difficult to properly set eye relief on anything other than short actions. Getting the eye relief right with these scopes is critical to minimize the eye box issues many guys have.

I hadn't thought about the mounting on a long action-
I looked up the mounting specs and there is only .3" difference between the two and they both have the same eye relief. I wonder if it's something to do with exit pupil?? or having to push the 2.5 all the way to the back in order to get correct eye relief? Your thoughts?

 

[brentc]

I hadn't thought about the mounting on a long action-
I looked up the mounting specs and there is only .3" difference between the two and they both have the same eye relief. I wonder if it's something to do with exit pupil?? or having to push the 2.5 all the way to the back in order to get correct eye relief? Your thoughts?

For me, it's about the physical dimensions of the 2.5-20 that don't allow mounting far enough back to obtain proper relief due to mount clearance.

Here is a picture of both scopes mounted for proper eye relief. You can see on the short action that the objective bell of the 2.5-20 allows for just enough clearance from the front edge of the base. The longer rail of a LA base will interfere here especially if the base extends forward of the receiver.

 

[jbur13]

For me, it's about the physical dimensions of the 2.5-20 that don't allow mounting far enough back to obtain proper relief due to mount clearance.

Here is a picture of both scopes mounted for proper eye relief. You can see on the short action that the objective bell of the 2.5-20 allows for just enough clearance from the front edge of the base. The longer rail of a LA base will interfere here especially if the base extends forward of the receiver.

I see the issue you're referring to now. What is your LOP? I've got about 14" and my neck is long so it's easy for me to get well into the eye relief area, and too close if I'm rushing things.
Thank you for taking the time to post those shots!!! I'm leaning towards 4-32 at this point.

I've owned both. Had a 4-32 F1 on my Seekins Element, Nice optic. When they invented the NX8 F2 I opted to switch
As I prefer 2nd Focal. Opted for the
2.5-20x50 f2. More compact, better fit
for my rifle. Very happy with it,
& totally adequate to 1000 yds.

HuntnPack: Is your rifle a short action or long action?