What to buy? NX8 or MK5HD

[Rick Richard]

I own two different NX8's in 4-32 one in FFP and the other in SFP and to be honest I prefer my old NXS 5.5 - 22 in MOART.

 

[Alpha Echo]

Take a look at this thread, and the associated thread on the 'slide:

Scope field evaluations on rokslide

Not sure how many have seen these over on the slide, i'm sure there is some crossover on forums, but these are interesting to follow, and a little heartbreaking for some of the favorite scopes... https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/rifle-scope-field-evaluations.133/

www.longrangehunting.com

It is absolutely eye opening how many high end scopes (including some I own) failed the drop test.

 

[Hotmail]

Good evening,
Having a rifle built and trying to stay light but not sacrifice any quality. I've been looking at the nightforce nx8 2.5-20x50 and the leupold mk5hd 3.6-18x44. Any feedback for these scopes? Pros and cons?

Also open to suggestions for a good lightweight scope.

Thanks

NX8 2.5-20x extremely hard to see the F1 FFP reticle unless you crank the magnification to 8-10x. Almost invisible at below 8x magnification. Unless you plan on buying the F2 SFP version. The glass isn't as clear as the 4-32x version.

I don't trust Leupold mid to high end scope tracking. Glass isn't as good as Vortex Razor Gen 3 or NX8 4-32x. I'd buy a Razor LHT either 3-15 SFP or 4.5-22 FFP or NX8 4-32x before a $1500+ Leupold.

Don't have to spend $1500 - $2000 for good quality reliable scopes you can do well with a Tract Toric 2.5-15 for under $1000 made in Japan. I don't recommend their higher magnification models though due to limitations in their German Schott glass for higher than 15x magnification scopes where chromatic aberration is apparent like the high end Leupolds.

 

[Hotmail]

Have both lines
NX8 4-23 and 2.5-20 MilXT
Mk5HD 5-25 and 7-35 PR2-Mil (Had 3.6-18 but sold that one)

I'd choose the NX8 over the Mk5HD for durability, slimmer form factor, and better glass with less chromatic aberration. Both are great crossover hunting scopes with competitive pricing in the area they live in.

Here's the 3.6-18 side by side with one of my NX8s and a Kahles.

View attachment 526982

Excellent comparison. I'd sure like to see Arken EP5 (their newest ones with improved glass not their older ones with junk glass) and Razor Gen 3 added to that lineup.

 

[nksmfamjp]

I'm hunting with this, and I'm using a fire dot twilight hunter reticle. I'm not a fan of the busy reticles. And a single aiming point is what I desire.

Then it sounds like you have the perfect reticle.

I hunt with a duplex on my sfp pistol scopes.

On my rifles, I prefer a tree reticle with a heavy bar on the outside. If I developed a reticle, I would trim the tree. Maybe 4-5 mil vs 10 mil. The heavy outer bar greatly improves the 0-300 yd center aiming

 

[Earnhardt]

Take a look at this thread, and the associated thread on the 'slide:

Scope field evaluations on rokslide

Not sure how many have seen these over on the slide, i'm sure there is some crossover on forums, but these are interesting to follow, and a little heartbreaking for some of the favorite scopes... https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/rifle-scope-field-evaluations.133/

www.longrangehunting.com

It is absolutely eye opening how many high end scopes (including some I own) failed the drop test.

Uh…no

I give zero credibility to that "test"… zero

Maybe if the "test" was controllable and repeatable.

But someone just "dropping" a gun/scope on the ground, is NOT controllable and repeatable.

The fact that anyone gives credibility to that "test"… is sad, and laughable

 

[JustMe2]

Uh…no

I give zero credibility to that "test"… zero

Maybe if the "test" was controllable and repeatable.

But someone just "dropping" a gun/scope on the ground, is NOT controllable and repeatable.

The fact that anyone gives credibility to that "test"… is sad, and laughable

Agreed. This would not be considered a valid scientific test where all variables are controlled and exactly identical. For example, a heavier scope is going to hit a surface harder when dropped from the same height because of physics and was not adjusted, etc., etc. Also, the sample size of one gives you no, what statistics call "confidence", that what you collected is repeatable and therefore an accurate representation. The confidence factor would be almost zero for this testing and therefore worthless. It's really not a fair comparison. It's the exact same argument you see discussed constantly about group sizes, is 3 shots enough samples, 5?, 10?, 100? You'd need to test at least 100 scopes of each model to have any confidence in this polynomial type of test. It's not a simple binomial test.

 

[Wedgy]

Uh…no

I give zero credibility to that "test"… zero

Maybe if the "test" was controllable and repeatable.

But someone just "dropping" a gun/scope on the ground, is NOT controllable and repeatable.

The fact that anyone gives credibility to that "test"… is sad, and laughable

If you dropped your rifle from 18" and it lost zero would you keep it ?
Lost zero riding around in the truck would you keep it ?
Try it with your own rifle if you don't think it is scientific enough.
It is supposed to make you think, not criticize the effort.

 

[Earnhardt]

If you dropped your rifle from 18" and it lost zero would you keep it ?
Lost zero riding around in the truck would you keep it ?
Try it with your own rifle if you don't think it is scientific enough.
It is supposed to make you think, not criticize the effort.

Don't drop your rifle from 18" then…

When riding around in a truck…put your scoped gun in a case

Try it with my own rifle?…. no…that is stupid…

IN MY OPINION…everything about the Rokslide scope drop test is unintelligent…the testing parameters are NOT controlled

Here's an idea…Don't drop your scoped gun

 

[buzby]

Don't drop your rifle from 18" then…

When riding around in a truck…put your scoped gun in a case

Try it with my own rifle?…. no…that is stupid…

IN MY OPINION…everything about the Rokslide scope drop test is unintelligent…the testing parameters are NOT controlled

Here's an idea…Don't drop your scoped gun

That's the point. No one wants to drop their scope. And most won't. Some people hunt rugged terrain, and ask a LOT of their equipment, and many scopes won't survive. How would one figure out which scopes survive without finding out in the middle of a hunt?

It's not scientific, he admits so. However patterns do emerge. Every NF has passed. You suppose it's a coincidence, or maybe they do build a durable scope?

It's not a sample size of one. He's seen thousands of animals shot, and the equipment that goes with it in actual field use. The results from his "tests" do correlate to the results he sees in the field. Patterns emerge.

People get butt hurt when a scope they like doesn't pass. Another pattern.

 

[Mike D Texas]

If anyone doesn't recheck their zero after dropping their scope in the field anyway, then they aren't very smart. If it holds zero, great. If not, re-zero and get back to hunting.

I care way more about accurate tracking and RTZ than dropping my scope.

 

[Earnhardt]

That's the point. No one wants to drop their scope. And most won't. Some people hunt rugged terrain, and ask a LOT of their equipment, and many scopes won't survive. How would one figure out which scopes survive without finding out in the middle of a hunt?

It's not scientific, he admits so. However patterns do emerge. Every NF has passed. You suppose it's a coincidence, or maybe they do build a durable scope?

It's not a sample size of one. He's seen thousands of animals shot, and the equipment that goes with it in actual field use. The results from his "tests" do correlate to the results he sees in the field. Patterns emerge.

People get butt hurt when a scope they like doesn't pass. Another pattern.

One thing you are not understanding…and I'll say it again…I give ZERO credibility to those "tests"

So therefore…how can I be butt hurt?

The ONLY "tests" that I will listen to are the real life testimonies of military personnel that put these optics through REAL tests…everyday beating the crap out of their optics…

Or how about the guys in PRS, running from stage to stage, putting their optics on the line…

Here's what I would truly enjoy…all of you Rokslide "scope test" believers, have a National Convention or get together…and you guys can drop your scopes all day long out in a parking lot somewhere and drink beer and be awesome..and tell stories of which scope passed and which ones failed…please report back.

Here's a question for you "Scope Test" believers…are your scope purchases being subtly or heavily influenced by these "scope tests"?

 

[Earnhardt]

If anyone doesn't recheck their zero after dropping their scope in the field anyway, then they aren't very smart. If it holds zero, great. If not, re-zero and get back to hunting.

I care way more about accurate tracking and RTZ than dropping my scope.

Winner winner…chicken dinner…

 

[buzby]

PRS? Light recoiling rounds, in 25lbs+ rifles, zeroed every day. It doesn't seem like much of a strain on equipment.

Military field use is OK, but back country hunting field use doesn't count?

In my limited Military use, Trijicon is reliable. Trijicons are gtg in the RS tests too. I don't see that as a coincidence.

I'd say the tests are confirming my beliefs in scopes more than heavily influencing them;

NF is reliable, in any environment

Leupold, is ok if treated well. I might put one on a whitetail rifle. Not my first choice for a western trip

SWFA is stout, but lacks in updates.

Trijicon makes great optics

Most scope brands prioritize marketing points and glass quality over reliablity.

Bottom line, the guy has more experience than about anyone in western rifle hunting, I'll listen to his thoughts. Even if his tests aren't scientific and peer reviewed.