With only one scope bearing the NX8 moniker, I've got a feeling theres more to come, surely they will expand the desirable 30mm tube 8x erector. The current 1-8x24 specs are perfect and make me want to try a 24mm.

FFP, low profile capped windage, zero stop, FC reticle looks very functional for hunting.

Formi, how handicap is 24mm in low light hunting situations? Have you handled 1-8x24? Any word on future models?

Dang I think this little dude would be sweet on the Fieldcraft.



http://www.nightforceoptics.com/nx8/nx8-1-8x24-f1

It is an interesting scope. I'd read where the illumination was daylight visible and asked Formi about how low it would go at last light to avoid washing out the image and he felt it was good at the low settings.

I'm still a fan of a simple heavier reticle with posts coming closer to the center as much of my use will be in thick stuff. I'm liking NF's forceplex and wish it was available in the 2.5-10 NSX with illuminated center....lighted forceplex in this one would likely get a purchase from me.

Interested to see what size/power config they come out with next in this line.

CT, two more ounces gets you a NXS 2.5-10 x 32. I picked one up for my 6 Creed Model 7. I think it will be skookum. Just need time to get out and do some shooting with it.

Still, this should be a great little scope.

Bob, things I prefer with the NX8 over the NXS 32MM.

FFP
Reticle
Capped Windage.
8x Erector
Not Discontinued, can buy off the shelf.

The NX8 as a package is a bad beeeech.... For any use where 1x is as, or more important than 8x, it is untouched by any other scope except for its bigger brother.











For dangerous game or thick woods shooting- absolutely. For general hunting, the view is going to be relatively dark at 8x because of the small objective. It’s usable, and the glass is quite good though.





As for more scopes in the line..... y’all have to understand that NF will not realease anything without nearly least two years of testing and evaluation from select end users AFTER a design is finalized. I had the NX8 and ATACR in my hands a year and a half ago......

Nice! So I have to assume you are either being tight lipped or have not seen any future models.

At the ever popular 6x the exit pupil is 4mm. Definitely not ideal for low light, but probably serviceable.

That was my thought....

NF needs a pass around program (grin). I can read subtensions on paper well enough but it ain't the same as looking through one...better yet, getting to use one.

I know this. After using many and still owning some large objective low light binoculars, I got tired of carrying around the bulk and weight and took the 8x32 Lecias to the deer stand one day. I've never used another bino since. The exit pupil is 4MM. I've not once wished for more. Will never carry anything more than 8x32s for general hunting use.

This really has me thinking the 6x 4mm exit pupil may actually work out like the 8x32 binos. I may have to be the guinea pig.

It’s pretty solid at 5-6x’ish. If that will work for your use, I think you’ll dig it. I have been trying to convince myself to use it on a bolt gun for a while.

Where are you located?

Form, is there any restriction on where you place the front ring in relation to the objective lens?

I am ordering one of the mil/mil versions for my 375 M70 and I am trying to decide if I can get by with QRW bases, or if I will need a rail to get proper ring placement.

AL

Me too if you want to share the love.

When I was thinking on one, I read a couple of reviews from guys who used Frank Proctor's and they thought the scope was stretching it for use on 8x. One even said if you were gonna use it as a 1-6 it would be fine but if you wanted the 1-8 spring for the ATACR. Sound about right?

All good points. I read what you write very carefully. You’re always on the money and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

No. And yes. The whole use of a LPV is that 1x is more important than high power, but at times you need a bit of magnification though not at the at expense of close rangespeed. On an M4 close range speed is 70-80% of the task, medium range target ID and targeting is the reminder. Low power must be as close to 1x, with as wide a field of view as possible, and with a reticle that works. High power needs to be usable- that’s all. Even the ATACR isn’t as “nice” at 8x as say the 2.5-10x is on 8x. It’s a give and take. If I planned to, or need to be on more than 1x the majority of time, then the 2.-5-10x, 3-9x, 3-12x, etc come out with an offset red dot.



For what a 1-8x is most used for, I actually prefer the NX8.

Sounds like I need to scratch the idea of it on a hunting rifle but now I want one for the AR.

Maybe NF will some day do the ATACR 4-16x42 in a lighter 30MM tube, but thats probably dreaming.

Or take the current NXS 2.5-10x42, make it FFP, cap the windage, and make the illumination/parallax knob low profile.

As it is, like always, I fall back on the LRHS (which ironically is discontinued).

Yes, Form put it in perspective with "If I planned to, or need to be on more than 1x the majority of time.....". I live between 4x and 6x for 90% of my use. 1 out of every 10 I'll have to dial and don't mind having more x's then.

There is a lot I like about the 2.5-10. It's a little finicky regarding parallax setting but it can be worked around. The open/thin reticles are my biggest complaint but much of that is related to hunting thick woods and my preference. Open areas and at distance they are great but slower to find in thick stuff. The reticles NF uses are made with a bias towards open/longer shots which is understandable. A lighted Forceplex in the 2.5-10 would be my request....and I asked about that but NF won't make that change to a 2.5-10.

Exactly.

I've been hoping on the 30mm tubed atacr for awhile myself. That would be a hard hunting scope to beat imo.

I mounted one of these on a lw bolt rifle yesterday and from 3x to 6x I liked it! The reticle is BOLD and the illumination is BRIGHT....like you could use it with a welding helmet on the upper end. Low settings of illumination were pretty good as light faded. The segmented circle around the center dot is bold enough that is stands out pretty well without illumination. Above 6x is touchy on head placement as you'd expect. Below 3x the main crosshairs do not fill the field of view. I don't know why NF didn't extend them out. The center isn't hard to find but I'd still prefer them across the field of view. Folks who do gun games may not though. Once the illumination is cranked up on the low powers the crosshairs aren't needed.....but I don't think they would hurt either.

Hope to shoot it a bit tomorrow to see what's what. I may have to play a bit with target designs to match up with the bolder reticle.

Sweet! Report back.

Come on up and shoot with me. Plan is to start a brush pile and once it burns down a little to shoot.....a couple more feet for stomping would be welcome if it don't go as planned!

Cool! Please let us know what you think after shooting, as I’ve thought hard about purchasing one of these scopes. The center dot seems really large (1.25 MOA), so I’m curious how that will work out.

Visual input and processing on 1x. The only thing I care about on 1x is a glowing red dot, everything else is a distraction from what’s important- the target and what it/they are doing.


It is quite likely that I have more rounds on NF’s 1-8x’s than anyone... The NX8 is a ridiculously good low power variable. Scratch that- all things considered it is the best LPV on the market.


Yes, the eyebox above 6x is slightly smaller than the ATACR, yes the clarity at 8x is a bit less than the ATACR, but it’s durability, reliability, function, size, weight, reticle, and illumination as a package is unmatched. As a dangerous game scope there isn’t another made by anyone that I’d rather use.

I’m going to mount an NX8 on a 6.5 Creed to see how it works on a lightweight rifle.

I would prefer the center dot to be .75-1moa, but I know why the did, and it works fine as is. The Larue 2” square zeroing target works great with it.

Yes, with the dot glowing on 1x-2x nothing else matters. Sans glowing dot I'd prefer the crosshairs extended. I'm saying this with only my small amount of time tracking goats and cattle with it in brush yesterday and today. The glowing dot cures all though.

Just put 40 rounds through a lightweight .308 wearing the NX8. Quick look through the bore/scope and everything looked perfect at 25 yards. Total adjustments for a 100 yard zero was 2" down and 1/2" left....nice when things line up and adjustments are exact (Talley 0MOA rail, Seekins low rings). Rifle is a stainless M7 action with a 22" #2 Douglas in an Edge fill stock that shoots better than I can make it.

I was low on reloads so I used factory ammo I had sitting around and I wasn't sure how it would shoot in this rifle. I disliked throwing an unknown in the first time out but 100 yard groups were 3/4" so I was happy enough after the first couple of groups. The reticle is course, if you want a fine line shooter this isn't it, but it was easy enough to keep a consistent hold using the circle/dot reticle on the thick diamond target I used at 100 yards...it was more of matching relationship than aiming at a spot. Read the drop off the box for steel at 200 and 300 and dialed accordingly. Even though the reticle is thick the circle/dot are easy (and fast) to match up to a 12x12 plate at 200 and 300 yards. Most 300 yard 3 shot groups were just under 2"....might have been better if I'd let the steel stop moving but I was in a hurry...it was freaking hot.

Every shot I took today was on 8x and from prone. It's tight but very usable. I really like the reticle and think it's going to work great for the hunting I do. I like a thicker reticle that really stands out. If you're someone who wants an exact crosshair match so you can see the point of aim it might not be for you. It will definitely suffer if the target can't be matched to it and at longer range but for putting it on a "thing" quickly and efficiently I really like it.

I'm shooting the MOA version and only shot out to 300. It will be a while before I get a chance to take it further. The 1/2" adjustments were noticeable at 300 and I would have preferred 1/4" but I can live with them for how I'll use it. I'll probably shoot it a fair bit over the next three days, changing powers and evaluating use there. I'm guessing it will spent most of it's time between 4x and 6x for hunting. Will try to slip out at dusk to 30 minutes after sunset and spend some more time with it then....that's my biggest question mark about it for my use.

A couple of notes from a little looking today...

Above 6x things/edges tend to get a little fuzzy. I didn't notice it when shooting but there was enough mirage, especially at 300 yards, that I couldn't have noticed it. Things are very crisp up through 6x. Above 6x it becomes noticeably tougher to pick out limbs/twigs....or things like a strand of barbed wire. They can be seen but are a touch hazy. The scope really has a sweet spot between 4x and 6x for me, which may line up good for my use.

Spent a while tracking barn swallows at a fast pace while they were catching bugs. Pretty fast with lots direction changes. Did this for a while and just under 2x, probably around 1.75x was really nice. Turning on the illumination makes a big difference, no surprise. I'm not a "jump shooter" when still hunting but I think someone would be hard pressed to find a better scope for that use if they often shoot at running game (or dangerous game). This was all done with blue sky as the background so there wasn't any clutter to lose the reticle in....but the illumination makes that a bit of a null point.

Hope to spend a little more time with it from sunset to 30 minutes after sunset today, paying specific attention to brightness and resolution differences between the 6x to 8x range in low light along with the effect of lowest illumination settings on and off at those powers.

Spent time from sunset to 1/2 hour after (end of legal hunting hours here) viewing a wooded background ~125 yards away. Sky was overcast with very little light so this was a good evening for it. Went up/down in power but settled on 6x. The bold circle/dot is visible for quite a while without illumination. Illumination helped find it the last 10-15 minutes when the heavily wooded background was essentially black. On gray tree trunks the circle/dot could still be picked out without illumination. The lowest illumination setting is ok, I would prefer it go a little lower but it's usable and not so bright that it washes things out.

I compared it with a 2.5-10x42 NXS with IHR and a 6x42 S&B Klassic with A8 to get an idea about how much going with the NX8 would be giving up at last light. Both were noticeably brighter and easier to use in the low light on 6x as should be expected. The IHR's illumination is useless during the day (unlike the NX8) but is excellent at last light because it can be set so low. Edited to add, mainly because I dislike it, the IHR reticle's point of aim couldn't be seen at all without the illumination....the open reticle design with very fine subtensions requires the use of the IHR's illumination. With this in mind, if you were stuck without illumination, you'd be better off with the NX8's bold reticle, dimmer image, and smaller exit pupil than you would with the IHR reticle....reticles matter. The S&B 6x's image seemed much brighter to me than either of the other scopes and the non-illuminated A8 reticle was usable until the end, again reticles matter.

The NX8 is usable but struggles a bit in low light. The image is dimmer with little wiggle room compared to a larger exit pupil of the other scopes...the ease of viewing with the larger two scopes compared to the NX8 was very noticeable. Illumination clears up any problem of finding the reticle on a dark background. Illumination didn't seem to wash out the image much but I wouldn't want it any brighter than the lowest setting...would actually prefer it to go a little lower for last light. If hunting a field or open area that isn't a black background like I was viewing the bold circle/dot can likely be seen without illumination. I had no problem seeing it in pastures. Again, it's usable but low light isn't it's strong point.

I bought the 1-8 trijicon, its a heavy 34mm, 32 or so ounce mother, I don't know how it compares to the 17 ounce NXS..I don't have the sharpest vision in the world however I don't see a problem with it at 8X on range targets during the day . i like the locking turrets on it, the illumination in the red is usable though I have not tried it much, the FF Plane reticle works for me at 1 and 8 but again don't have any comparison against the NXS, it dials accurately and appears to be a rugged rifle scope however I have not beat it up too much. I think I could consider the NXS 1-8 at 17 ounces but it sounds from the discussion above that its more readily usable as a 1-6.

Thanks. I agree, reticles matter, a lot. Even for shorter range woods hunting.

Appreciate the report Jay. Sounds like there were no surprises.

About the only surprise was how bad the resolution was at 8x...as much as anything I'm surprised I didn't notice it when shooting the other day. Spending time with it clears up completely at just a touch under 6x on the power dial and is a nice sharp image there. Lot to like about it but as expected there are trade offs.

My postal scale may be a touch off but it showed the bare scope weighing 18.2 ozs rather than the 17 listed in specs. Not a big difference and I need to check my scale as it could be wrong.

The 1-6 Vudoo looks better to me and for a bit less.

I like good glass. That thing would be gone for not being clear at its top magnification.

The Vudoo is nowhere close. There are optical compromises that have to be made to create such a tiny 8x zoom scope. 1-4x’ish is excellent. 4-6x’ish is really good. 8x is for zeroing, and purposeful distance. The vast majority don’t even notice it until it’s pointed out. We had an event with just shy of 20 people and around 121,000 rounds. They used Trijicon 1-6x VCOG’s, 1-8x Accupower and ACOG’s, Vortex Razer Gen II 1-6x, SWFA 1-6x, Aimpoints, Eotech’s, Nightforce 1-8x ATACR and NX8’s. They used them from 0-600 yards in all lighting conditions, with the biggest target being 12” while they were being measured and timed for score. The optic that 100% of them chose at the end was the NX8. Then ATACR, then quite a ways behind- split between the 1-6x SWFA and the 1-8x Trijicon Accupower.

Most notice after being told/shown that the ATACR has a slightly more forgiving eyebox, and better optical performance at 8x, yet everyone when forced to choose one has chosen the NX8. The durability, reliability, reticle, illumination, ease of use, size, and weight all combine to make it untouched on the market for serious use. I don’t say this lightly- for what they were designed for the NX8 and ATACR 1-8x are the best low power variables that have ever been produced... by anyone.

well damn, guess I got to save a buck more

new model surefire warcomps?
Kinda been wondering bout em
Is it expansion chambered slightly for the 6 ports?
Are the ports angled forward any?
Ain't even seen one local yet around ft campbell/Clarksville for sale.
Ain't even heard of, or seen anyone running one yet.
I'm sure 5th group types have run em by now.

How they run?
I run a vg6 gamma 5.56, it works good. Makes the muzzle run like a horizontal sewing machine needle.
Little loud but not excessively, but flash is well above a2 birdcage level.

How does the NX8 fit on a short action CF rifle? Would it work with Talley lightweights or is a rail/rings required to position correctly?
I’m always open to different ideas and for a lightweight rifle I tend to use in bad weather and dark timber, whether it be in the Rockies or eastern whitetail woods, and I don’t seem to shoot that far, this could be an interesting combination.

Have wanted to try a nxs 2.5-10x24 for a while. This NX8 looks like a slightly smaller version. That Fc reticle looks nice as well.

I'll try to take a picture of it mounted in the next couple of days and post it. Will be late tonight at the earliest..... I've got it on a ring/rail setup but hopefully you can at least see the fore/aft positioning.




I've only spent time with the IHR, Forceplex, and FC reticles, but for close in, thick background, or low light shooting I prefer the FC reticle. Forceplex isn't bad but a little more thickness could go a long way. If hunting more open areas and longer ranges the thinner reticles come into their own.

This is a M7 action, Talley rail, Seekins low rings. A fair amount of wiggle room and it would work on this action with TLW's.

Thanks, doesn’t look bad. Keep us up to date on how it works as a hunting setup.

Edit: ill bet that’s a really durable setup.

Looks solid, but dang it sets up high. You guys using Talley one piece bases must be happy with a chin weld instead of a cheek weld.

lol....it is higher than the DNZ mount that was on it previously, but I think it actually fits me better off hand. I noticed the same on several other rifles that I've switched over as well. Guess I just have a fat face....

A 2-16x44 would be awesome, I’m thinking...

Could not agree more. F1 of course.

I prefer a low power variable to the red dots provided the LPV reticle is daylight bright, the red dots are just not as clean and precise and aiming point to my eyes anymore. After looking at the reticle on the Vudu I decided that one is a "no"

this is a really good scope. Primary Arms 1-6x24mm GEN III ACSS Riflescope, I heard it was made in the same factory where they make the knock off Chinese leupolds.

Considering bigger zoom ratios are likely to require erector lenses to move farther forward, I'm amazed NF can get 8x multiples into such a short scope. Not that I believe in high multiples like that. Getting above the traditional 3x multiples was hard work, even with reticle-movement scopes. Adding more and more complication to articulated erector tubes sounds like a dumb idea to me where heavy recoil is involved. The Romanian maker Valdada was early into big-multiple erector tubes but I'm not sure they believe in them, esp. when it comes to tactical scopes. There, their most-trusted technology is or recently was fixed power, reticle-movement.

I haven't looked through an NX8 but hear the vision fades a bit at 8x. With a 3mm exit pupil, that's not surprising. If you buy the twilight factor bag, though, that scope at 8x has a value of 14, compared with, say, the 12 of a classic German 4x81 with its 9mm exit pupil - and some of that 9mm will be wasted on most people.

For use on big-game rifles, I find Nightforce's reticles a bit twee. Why can't they make a #4 type with heavy side bars coming close to the centre, so when the battery and all else fails, your eye will still get the picture?

That's mostly bullcrap.

Just to avoid confusion: Valdada is a US company that imports products from a few places. The Romanian company you are thinking of is IOR.

What sounds like a dumb idea to you seems to be working pretty well for pretty much every decent scope maker out there, even for IOR. I am not sure where you are getting your information but pretty much EVERY scope IOR has introduced in the last several years is a fairly conventional high erector ratio design.

The only scope they currently make with a non-centered reticle that you like is the fixed power 4x24 M1. They first started making that scope in the late 60s or early 70s and it wasn't exactly cutting edge back then either. It is a modification of the basic Soviet PSO/POSP 4x design that was originally developed in the Soviet Union for the Dragunov rifle. It was made in a couple of ComBlock countries for export and for their indigenous sniper/DMR rifles. PSL in the case of Romania (introduced in 1974).

In other words, this was their most trusted technology as recently as the 70s.

ILya

I am beginning to wonder if samberman is here as a troll. Looks like from everything I have considered the NXS8 even with its poor performance a 7-8X probably my best bet for a lw 223.

Well, that's interesting, Koshkin, perhaps you could take my argument to pieces and explain exactly where the bull crap is. Is it not true, for instance, that turning up the magnification moves lenses forward, not true that larger power multiples require longer erector tubes? Are my twilight factor figures wrong?

Optics companies dissembling on their country of manufacture is nothing new. Reading the Nightforce 80-page catalog gives the distinct impression their scopes are made in America, but I'm told that is not the situation, either. As a variation on Will Rogers' saying, in this regard, I only know what I read in the websites. In the Valdada case my attention was drawn to this FAQ question several years ago and it remains on their website:

Why is my reticule off to one side?
Our M-series of tactical scopes and our 3x25 QR-TS scopes feature non-centered reticules. As you move the reticule, it physically moves inside the scope as there is no erector tube moving. It is a non centered reticle design and is normal to have it sit slightly out of center. This system is an old military design and has proven to be incredibly durable in combat situations.

Your knowledge of the brand is obviously way ahead of mine but I was honestly led to believe it was a Romanian maker. While I don't accept that it is good or even normal to have the reticle noticeably out of centre, except when mounted badly, I am impressed by a company that also sells scopes with power multiples up to 10x admitting the residual merits of reticle movement.

Much as you have convinced me that Nightforce must be a hell of a brand, and I have expressed a certain pride that this marque has an Australian origin, the complaints of failures in virtually every other brand keep me from thinking image-movement is just as stable in its essential concept. It just so happens that before reading your responses, I pulled to bits an old Nickel Marburg scope, to weigh up the parts in checking my opinion that the movable elements have roughly one-tenth the mass likely to move in a quality modern scope.

The Nickel's reticle assembly was actually quite substantial, comprising a narrow, 21mm-diameter ring with a #1 reticle, attached to a solid brass ring almost 1cm 'long',with a male dovetail on the front to locate it vertically in a solid sleeve ahead, to prevent movement forward or back under recoil. The mass of this movable assembly is 142 grains, heavier than I expected but still within the 80 to 150 grains I had estimated previously.

This assembly was held up against the single turret screw by a very strong flat spring fixed to the sleeve ahead. The mass of the separate 9cm-long, brass-mounted erector set, lodged unmovingly in the outer tube, is approx. 1235 grains. Because it extends the full width of the tube, it would be heavier in section than modern erector tubes (in 1'' scopes, at least) but is much shorter and does not include the reticle bit.

The shortness of the Nickel erector set may be because the scope was only a 2.5-6x variable, not one with the 6-and-8x multiples so common now. I would estimate that the erector tube NF showed in their 2017 catalog is about 50% longer than that old erector set. Even the aluminum erector tube from a Tasco 3-9 I've got measures 13cm.

Though NF appear to have some miraculous way of taming them, ILya, can you deny that the leveraged inertia forces on a 13cm erector tube, weighing from two to four ounces, are likely to exceed those on a short, 142-grain reticle assembly? Can you assure me that over hundreds of shots on a portable 458 Lott rifle, rather than the motor-like vibrations of a Vulcan machine gun, that the modern NF erector tube, let alone anyone elses, is not more prone to scrape and crash against the turret screws, eventually giving trouble?

No, jimmyp, I am not a troll. Things optical have got a bit quiet over at AR, so I thought I might bring my message to some new eyes. There is a book but I don't wish to violate the forum rules, so won't mention its name unless I buy some advertising. I concur with you on one point, though: I'm sure the NX8 will give a lifetime of service on your .223.

You're swinging an awfully big stick with just 15 posts.

DF

We'll all have plenty of laughs at his next 15 posts, I'm sure. He's making the circuit around several boards trying to find someone who thinks he knows what he's talking about. He's struck out so far.

I am thinking he will fit right in with all the catty fuqking optic know it alls on this forum..

When ILya calls him out...

And he's not usually so blunt.

Don't reckon this dude knows who he's messing with...

DF

Thanks guys, I'm a bit disappointed in you, though, JGRaider. I was hoping you'd explain all and give me a free ad

Well, you're now up to 16 posts...

DF

You supposedly wrote a book, I didn't. It would be a waste of my time. Besides, you wouldn't believe a guy (Formid) who sees hundreds of thousands of rounds fired. Anxiously awaiting post #17..........

Turning up the magnification moves some erector lenses forward. Not all. There are erector systems out there with lenses moving in both directions.

Twilight factor is mostly bullcrap, but not of your invention, so you get a pass on that.

Larger erector ratios usually requite longer tubes, but there are exceptions. Erector optical system does not exist in a vacuum. There is a relationship between that and objective and eyepiece.

Nightforce makes most of their stuff in Japan, but some of it is indeed assembled and aligned in the US.

Valdada is an American company. They are an importer of a bunch of products including Romanian IOR scopes. The 3x25 was IOR's attempt to compete against ACOGs and Elcans. I think it came out about 15 years ago. I had a couple of them and despite that silly reticle set-up, it is a fairly decent scope. Commercially, it has been a dismal failure though, since IOR had no idea who the customer for this type of a product is.

I do not remember convincing you of anything about NIghtforce. There are plenty of excellent brands out there that make good scopes. I am not sure why you are fixating on Nightforce, other than the Australian financial connection.

Similarly, I am not sure what your pre-historic Nickel scope has to do with any of this.

Best I can tell, you are not an engineer of any sort, are you? You are mixing up technical concepts and throwing them around without any apparent comprehension of what they mean.

That makes it extremely difficult to have any sort of a coherent discussion. Noone ever said that the erector tube is not larger and heavier than a single reticle cell. There is nothing miraculous in stabilizing the movement and position of an erector tube. It is really not that difficult of a problem to solve and a bunch of companies have solved it quite successfully.

You are spitting out numbers on the length of the erector tubes and related factors as if they mean anything at all when it comes to durability of a scope. They really do not. All the rubbing/scraping etc you are referring to is not terribly difficult to mitigate if you are so inclined.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying "there is no way a Boeing 777 can fly! Look how big it is compared to a Cessna. Now Cessna, that is a REAL airplane!". This is the essence of your argument. In other words, you are saying: "Since I do not understand how this can work, there is no possible way it can work". There is no way to take that as a serious argument since you are not an expert in the field (well that, and experts usually do not make patently silly arguments like that).

As I have told you elsewhere, making a scope that survives 458 Lott is not a terribly difficult problem to solve. However, given how small the market of people who shoot hundreds of rounds of 458Lott is, noone cares about it. Scope makers solve different problems aiming at market segments where they can make money. Two dozen 458Lott owners around the world is not one of them.

If it is very important to you, take your check book, go to one of the decent OEMs and tell them what you want. If you are willing to pay, they will make you anything you want to any level of durability on small arms your want. Start a new company and once you sell twenty or so scopes to all the 458Lott owners out there, you can rest on your laurels.

ILya

Now, if I understood all that, I'd leave a comment...

Thanks, ILya for your contributions.

Always enjoy reading your stuff.

DF

Optics Forum never disappoints!

And when you think you've seen it all...

DF

Samberbean the nicest thing I can say is that your nuts.

Thanks Koshkin, believe it or nuts I really do appreciate your explanation of the lens movement in large-multiple erector tubes.

Don't be shy, ILya, you and Rancid Coolaid have convinced me that Nightforce scopes, at least, are virtually indestructible. However, I would still like to understand the magic components that allow theirs, and those of the other good brands you referred to, to overcome that simple physics problem I see. Could you explain what, apart from metallurgy, fine gimbals, tumbled erector springs and the sometimes-used Posi-Lock-type provision, solves the problem of recoil inertia rocking and wearing down the brass-heavy erector tube over time? Apart from March and Elcan, what other brands do you think have nullified the dangers I see? If there's really nothing in it any more, how come so many queries and me-toos in the forums concern expensive scopes that have stuffed up in holding zero?

I have a bunch of old Nickels, but the only reason I mentioned that one is because, having bought it at a parts price, it was one from a good brand I did not mind pulling to bits. The main deficiency I saw in it was the fragility of a metal reticle in the first focal plane. That's one place recoil could really wreck those old scopes, and a good reason for glass (?) graticules, even if they do reduce light transmission.

No, I am not an engineer or any kind of expert. As I explain in the book, mine is a journey trying to find out the truth of these matters and a discussion on the need for, reliability and ethics of certain other aspects of modern scopes. The discovery continues and I include with the book updates on information coming to hand since publication. Your thoughts will be included in a future update, all the more if you can answer some more of my questions, seen above.

I don't know how many 458 Lott owners there are in the world. I only know a couple face-to-face but others through long exchanges of correspondence. I do know and have hunted with several 458 Winchester owners, though - and some of their rifles, being quite light, are only a few foot-pounds behind, recoil-wise. They're not just used for African game. At least three of my friends use them for hunting the big deer we have here, because they save long trail ups. Others I know own and use hard kickers from 378 WM to 500 NE. We may not all shoot hundreds of shots from such rifles but knowing that scope failure is several packets away would not comfort me. So, I think the application for really strong scopes may be much greater than you estimate.

Point taken re. knowledge of technology. I admit my understanding of the jet engine is a bit basic but I'm not sure the size of a Boeing compared with a Cessna is a fair analogy for my comparison of large and small movable masses within a riflescope.

Nothing is indestructible. Not all Nightforce scopes are build to the same standard. Not all scopes are built to the same standard. However, plenty of scopes are built to a very high standard. Whether you are willing to pay for that is a different ballgame.

All products are built to a particular price point and they are all designed to withstand a certain level of punishment. How exactly they set this up inside varies a bit here and there and riflescope designers really dislike it when people start going into details, so I won't. This stuff is fairly proprietary.

Suffice to say that with modern materials and surface treatments, this really does not need to be a major issue. Same for the springs. Not all springs are created equal and there are multiple ways to set them up. Swarovski made a big deal of they coil spring arrangements not because it is so awesome (although it is a good idea), but rather because it makes for good marketing.

Some scope makers have made a big deal of how they set-up the contact point between the turret stem and the erector tube. Weaver and Sightron both used to have nice illustrations of how they do with Micro-trak and Exac-trak, respectively. Look those up. The illustrations do not tell the whole story, but make for a nice example. I can think of at least two other ways to do this, now that you made me think about it and I am not much of a mechanical engineer. My field of expertise is mostly with imaging systems. I need to do some digging. Perhaps this will make a nice patent.

Either way, I have shot 458Lott, but I have never tried to go through the exercise of determining which scopes hold up on it and which scopes don't. I hear a lot of complaining about it, but I have never seen anyone do anything systematic about it. If you think there is a market there, do some testing with higher quality scopes and if everything fails, approach some maker with this idea. If you convince them there is a market there, someone will attack it.

Some scope makers have their products tested by independent labs. For example, lately I have been spending a lot of time with Delta Optical products and their Titanium (LOW made) scopes seem to be tested to withstand 6500J impulse. That is approximately 70 times higher than the recoil energy of 458Lott. Now, I do not know the exact protocol, how many pulses and which directions, but all of that information is out there, although usually proprietary.

Personally, I am not convinced that modern low power variables will not survive on the Lott, but I am not about to start testing it. What I usually see with big boomers like that is that people are not willing to spend the money. They put a $300 scope on a boomer and then act very surprised when it falls apart.

I know what I would do if I were trying to make an ultra robust scope for a dangerous game rifle, but I have not idea if anybody is already doing it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is.

I would really like to see some higher end fixed power scopes of comparatively low magnification.

Perhaps the new Leupold FX4.5 that they are making for competition guns will be an interesting option or the competing 4.5x Nightforce, although I would not mind a 2.5x or 3x with truly modern construction and optics.

How about this: if you manage to poll enough people to make it look like a viable project, I'll do the rounds and see if I can talk some manufacturer into doing this. In principle, an ultra robust low power scope might be a good fit for SWFA's hunting scope line and their erector systems are exceedingly durable, especially given their modest cost.

ILya

Samberman this is a forum about hunting and shooting, not about you getting an education into how to build a rifle scope. Want an education? Go buy a NF 1-8 and tear it apart, then report back to us. The NIchol's not Nickles scopes were supposed to be a POS in the first place yes I googled it as I had never heard of them. We used to say "it did not happen without pictures" now we are having some weird ethereal nut job out of body experience rifle scope discussion. Go buy the scope, shoot it, break it, tear it apart, post pictures.

JG was awaiting the proverbial 17th post.

And, now we have it.

But, there's always #18...

DF

Can't wait........it appears post #17 was meant to pitch his book. I hope it's cheap, for the buyer's sake.

Is "pitch" the same as "pimp"..?

DF

Thanks ILya for that well-reasoned explanation. As you suggest, some of the engineering brilliance may be so subtle it might be compared with chemical developments where the maker does not patent because to do so would give competitors too much insight ...

I was familiar with the Weaver Model T Micro-trac idea, the first advertised image-movement improvement I can recall, beginning the tradition of makers saying how they have improved the concept, without explaining why it was really needed. The local gunshop owner is very impressed with Delta scopes, though they have a bit much tunnel vision for my liking. One of his staff took one to the Northern Territory on a 9.3x62 and somehow managed to fire 600 shots through it on one hunt without trouble. That test you mention certainly sounds formidable. My wife's family are Polish, so I'm glad to hear good stuff comes from their country, too (assuming that's where Delta is made).

As you may have noticed, my outlook is more that a product like this should not only be strong but that non-destructive examination of the design should manifest that strength. In my innocence (and disbelief) that image-movement could ever be as tough as the old types, I had never taken too much notice of the advertisers' puffs that their new scopes were shockproof. Worse still, I had not even heard of Burris's Posi-Lock. However, upon concluding that constantly centred reticles were too entrenched to resist (March and Elcan have shown me wrong there, too), I envisaged a third screw at 7.30 to lock the erector tube in place after alignment. I've since discovered that Posi-Lock does that but, according a certain masochistic rifleman I've corresponded with, is not strong enough.

So, patent licensing from Burris assumed, I'd take it a step further, turning that 'button' into a full turret screw, even with clicks, just for locking purposes. To limit the chatter of the erector-tube spring, I would use a helical one, located around that third screw and topped with a greasy-brass cup washer. I'm done with patenting things because, unless you own the means of production, there's rarely much point; so any maker who wants to try that idea has my blessing. Use of such things has the downside that once you tighten up the third screw, the zero may move again, but the extra work is probably less than tucking shims into mounts, as I've been known to do

Sorry jimmyp, if you want to google B. Nickel, Marburg, it helps to use the right spelling. I may be nuts but do know how to spell you're. Please excuse my failing to recognise that concern for the strength of scopes for elephant rifles is nothing to do with with hunting and shooting.

No, Dirtfarmer, insult taken but 'pimp' suggests being an agent for someone else. Whatever happened to the old America where people other than Greyhound clerks seemed really polite?

JG, the publishers charge $A30 for the book but I have persuaded them to send it to the US for $US32, simple postage paid. I have been known to give them away, though, to well-wishers. As someone who has helped me in his debating, I would be pleased to send one to Koshkin if he gave me an address by PM (and I find out how to access them).

Going back to the NX8, I've used it a fair bit now and really like it. That said, I'll probably be taking it off the little lightweight .308. Mainly due to the low light/smaller exit pupil for hunting at dusk....the clarity at 7x and 8x might be an issue for someone shooting longer range often but mirage was bad enough when I've been shooting it at targets the "fuzzy" image wasn't as much of an issue as mirage. If long range and dialing are your main focus the thick reticle and adjustment increments might hinder you a bit.....you can hit stuff just fine but it's no surprise long range all the time isn't the main focus of this scope.

I'll either move it to an AR or to a .375. I think it's the perfect scope for either of those. Keep a short range zero and still dial, fast bold/daylight visible illuminated reticle, small and light. If you're a "Benoit" type still hunter it would be great for that...I considered putting it on a .358 that I still hunt with but the ability to dial would never be needed there so I didn't. If you like the idea of a scout rifle, use this instead of a scout scope......that would be a great place for it.

I really like it but think an AR, dangerous game rifle, still hunting for moving game, or scout type rifle are where it will be the best fit...so that's where it's going to go.

The internal improvements are not that subtle if you know what to look for. Most of them are difficult to patent and, if you file a patent application, you simply give it out to your competition before your product is on the market. Most of these are kept as trade secrets giving the manufacturer some advantage if it is indeed a worthwhile improvement.

Weaver Micro-Trac was the first attempt to advertise this. That has nothing to do with the engineering effort. First to advertise does not mean first to do.

I am very impressed with Delta too. That having been said, they use LOW for all of their higher end products. They do a lot of QC in Poland, but their products are made in Japan (most scopes) and China (lower end scopes and all binoculars and spotters). Delta also makes an effort to have their stuff independently tested which is a really good reality check.

While Burris Posi-Lok is a reasonable idea, if you want to make something truly shock proof, rigidly fixing it in place is not always the best idea (it is always the idea that non-technical people default to for some reason). On the contrary, sometimes you want stuff to move in a controlled manner. That allows you to spread the reocil energy over a greater range of movement which results in much lower internal shock to the individual elements. If you pay close attention, you will notice that Burris does not use Posi-Lok on their latest designs and durability has not suffered in any way. If anything, their XTR II scopes have a reputation for tracking well and being exceedingly robust.

In general, a Posi-Lok type system is very cheap and easy to implement, yet nobody uses it. Just some food for thought.

ILya

Great info. I’ve been thinking about an NX-8 for a Kimber Talkeetna 375. Your post just made the decision to order one that much easier!

Thanks again, ILya,
What would some of those not-so-subtle improvements be? I know now that some of the internal additions are a bit flaky, though, falling off as debris. I'm sure trade secrets exist but, from my devil's-advocate position, the thought that they should wipe out all doubts is hard for me to embrace. Commercial bastardry is widespread in many other fields, such as grocery companies misrepresenting health properties and origin of their ingredients - why would scope makers be much different? I know too well some fudge their origins. Thinking of another poster's input, makers claiming their scopes are shockproof reminds me of Mandy Rice-Davies' "They would, wouldn't they?".

And when the scope turns out not to be shock-proof, there's nothing like a brand-new scope given under the lifetime warranty to make the customer forget about the false claim.

As you say, shock absorption can be a good thing; a car without springs and shockers would be a shocker. And yet the toughest vehicles of all, tractors, tanks and bulldozers, do not have real suspensions, consigning most of the matter to the driver's seat. Conversely, I would prefer to put scope shock absorption into the mounts, as Bausch & Lomb and target-scope makers used to do. At least if something goes wrong out there, you may notice it before it ruins your hunt.

In the 1950s, Lyman spruiked their scopes' cushioned lenses as protection from recoil. B&L, on the other hand, said cushioning was a bad idea because over time the cushioning would compress and distort, leading to lenses moving forward and tipping, altering the line of sight. Unertl said any lens cushioning would eventually lead to parallax. B&L claimed to mount their lenses rigidly between metal mountings, which had to bear perfectly to remove the risk of the glass shattering.

An old outfitter on another forum says the most common way to knock a scope out of whack is a bump at the objective end, and the bigger the objective bell and the farther it pokes out, the more it will be dislodged. I can attest to this after a slip in NZ brought my Nikon 4-16 Monarch down against a muddy bank. It wasn't much of a bump, nothing that would have troubled my little-old Kahles 2.3-7x32 much but, when a chamois appeared at 120 yards a few minutes later, I missed. Bore sighting showed the scope had been knocked out three inches as 25 yards. To my mind, the only set-up that has much chance of avoiding disappointments like that is a small scope in mounts that spring back, like the old B&L 'Custom' type, used up until the early 1970s.

Yes, the Posi-Lock idea seems to have been a bit of a fizzer - in my opinion because it was under-cooked. Do you have any experience with what appears to be the same thing on the Nightforce Precision Benchrest scopes?

Oh my...

I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen someone use so many words to say so little.

This is what it looks like when you go full retard while wearing tweed.

Holy [bleep]. Who invited Richard Bevan Braithwaite.

He is painful enough here, imagine trying to read his book

A big thumbs down for post #19.

samberbean No one gives a sh it.

Nichols

I am hoping he meant Nickel AG http://www.nickel-ag.com/, but I could be wrong.

Either way, I do not foresee the end to the increasingly useless questions about obsolete technology, so I am going to take my leave from this discussion.

ILya

I’m always amazed at how guys that don’t squat about optics want to debate you over your statements. Absolutely ridiculous.

Sorry to hear you're going ILya, as you did explain quite a lot and I am glad of your help. I'm not sure what your reference to Nickel AG was about. I am familiar with the brand's website but, since they only seem to sell by mail order at extremely high prices, I may never try one of their scopes. They are not great correspondents, though, and it took me an age to get them to admit they didn't even know what the B in B.Nickel had stood for. I imagine their scopes are pretty good but recall some other forum members saying that when Hertel & Reuss got hold of Nickel Marburg around 1970 the optical quality dropped. Can't say I've noticed with my later ones but that's not the matter I obsess about.

By the way, in regard to the different and proprietory technology you've mentioned, I've finally discovered how Pecar was able to offer replaceable reticles in their constantly centred, Champion line. Apparently their erector set remained fixed in the outer tube but they used a constricted ring around the FFP reticle to create a field stop at that point. This was how I imagined image-movement worked when I first heard about it 50+ years ago, and it explained in my mind why there might be a lessening of FoV and an increase in tunnel vision, as one of the scribes of the time suggested. Since the Champion came later, however, I don't suppose that was the reason. I don't know whether those deficiencies exist in these Pecar scopes but a mate has one he is going to lend me, to find out. Such a system should at least be more robust.

As to the 458 Lott business, Kingston, I've asked some guys on another forum and hear that since there are at least two mainstream companies chambering that calibre and at least two others loading the cartridges, the numbers of rifles could exceed 1000. Apparently the custom gunsmith D'Arcy Echols has made at least 20 himself. Add to these guys the ones who have long-throated 458 Wins, which allow greater powder capacity, and I think the application for super-strong scopes is definitely there (if not here )

I must say I have never come across quite so many trolls with so little to contribute bar venom. If you think the discussion should go in another direction, do as prairie goat did and talk about the aspects you think matter.

What is an optics forum really supposed to talk about? Is it limited to who paid most for their scope or at what range you can see a bee's dick with it?

What's the matter with your signature line JGRaider? I see this high-minded, almost Godly, statement when I first open your posts but it disappears when I look back. Is it ashamed of the hypocrisy you may be accused of?

maybe your are picking up that no one else is obsessed with what you are obsessed with.

Finally, Jimmy, you are right. And since ILya has left the field, I might do likewise. If told, I've forgotten what his own qualifications were but at least he had a go and provided some good arguments, rather than lame and vacuous insults.

Adios

Thanks Kingston, most unexpected.

In regard to your thoughts on wearing tweed, I assure you the guys I know who hunt sambar with .458s are not rich, and are anything but snobs. Not only don't they wear tweed but one has written a long article on why we should wear blaze-orange camo. That's not a popular colour here, either, even though scientists have long said deer only see colors at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum.

The same man (Ken Pearce), who wrote a very successful book on sambar hunting called Walking Them Up, told me my cover needs a more-obvious reticle in the scope. So, when I have time, I add one (see link) by hand for people who request it. Though as-printed copies are being retailed in the USA, you could ask the publishers for the $US32 posted price. Members who want a signed and/or reticle-enhanced copy, should tell Bunduki that, pay for it, and then PM me with your address.

https://ssaagunsales.com/listing/15671

Well I finally found one in stock at a local dealer, dude was asking $200 more than list price so anyway. I liked everything about the scope the optics were a chit ton better than my old NF 1-4 the FFP reticle works well, the illumination is stellar, and I loved the capped windage turret! I did not think it got too dark in the store at 8x? I even adjusted the ocular to focus on the reticle better, its a great scope. Just after looking at it I just cannot bring myself to buy it with the uncapped elevation turret. Damn want to buy one but I guess got to wait.

What's your problem with a uncapped elevation turret jimmyp??

For a rough use rifle that has the potential for being in car seats, on the floor of a truck, carried in a bag, used a lot and for only a 1-8 I have no desire for an uncapped turret. Further they make a capped elevation turret in this model but will only sell it to LEO and .mil

They're here!

https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/new-high-power-nightforce-nx8.6936376/

Very excited for these.

If you're someone who needs the extra x's that would be interesting. More x's than I need and the extra weight puts it over the top for me......but it should be a rugged/compact package for that power range.

Jay, I didn't think I needed nor wanted more X's, until I tried more X's. Man its nice for long range work. There's no hunting situation where I'd turn up the power, but for playing it sure is nice.

Anybody want a good deal on a Vortex Gen II 4.5-27?

NF hit a home run with this line. Now if they'd make a few tweaks (which they won't) to the 2.5-10x42 I'd have all basis covered and be a happy man.

ctsmith:

You still shooting that 300WM ya got from me??

What are the details on the new scopes? Can’t see them without logging in to schitt azzed snipers hole.

Cap the windage and put a forceplex with the digilum in it and I'd get another.....give it a fixed parallax or make it so the parallax isn't as touchy and I'd end up with several of them.

I have no problem with someone wanting more x's for hunting or long range play. I spent a while with the 4.5-18 lrhs and I can enjoy the 18x at the bench. For my preferences and use though, I'll take a 2.5-10x42 that weights 1/2 a lb less.

Confirmed FFP.

I shiver at the thought of a magnum anymore. A neighbor is killing deer with it.

Looking good Clint. I like more x's at times myself......probably my 58 yr old eyeballs. Glad to see a 30mm tube instead of the new 34mm fad.

I hear ya......6.5 Creedmoor is more my style these days!!

For a hunting rig thats exactly what I'd like. 10x with no parallax adjustment. Illumination knob like on the 32mm. Capped windage. SFP is good for me on a 10X.

Johnny, I hear you on the 30mm. Now my position is that I'll never have a 34mm, but thats what I said about a 30mm.

Myself as well. The 7mag doesn't get used near as much as it used to.

300Mag, that rifle is crazy accurate, probably the best I've ever seen at that weight.

Mil-C....

Thanks for the info.

I agree on the wish for a lighter mid-power model for a hunting scope. These scopes look superb for a belly gun.

Probably won’t happen, but I’d take several. And I’d be fine with even a 32 mm objective.

With literally no one dialing windage, I don't get the hold out on the cap. A locking turret will work too.

And the honking big parallax/illumination knob is an abomination on anything with a the name of "compact".

I should clarify that the 1/2 lb less comment was in reference to the NSX 2.5-10 at 20.5 oz vs the NX8 2.5-20 at 28 oz.

True.

The lack of desire to offer the plain Forceplex reticle in the NSX series amazes me. I was told they had many requests for it but no plans to offer it.

No, but I dial spin drift when shooting at 800 and beyond.

SFP with a MOAR, sign me up. FFP at 2.5x with a reticle that is usable at 20x? Does it come with a magnifying glass so you can see the reticle?

If you're buying a scope to mostly use at lower powers this is NOT the scope for you.

I can only guess, but I would think it’s simply a crosshair at lower powers.

A small 2.5-20 appeals to me. A lot. But then it’s a 50mm obj and weighs 28oz which dampens my enthusiasm. I really do not understand the use case for the Mil-C reticle. You have a scope with exposed dials, then have this fine scale ruler of a reticle. 5 MIL of windage? Shooting in a hurricane? All I can assume is that this a precision rifle competition thing.

Seems to have a number of people fawning over it so I guess some see this as the right combination of traits. I’m sure it’s a great scope, I’m just not sure for what.

Maybe a 2-16x36 with a Forceplex-like reticle with about 2MIL of windage reference and weighing about 20oz will join the family in the future?

prm, I hear you on the reticle, and agree. I'd be happy if NF would just bring back the Mildot.

Preach it.
I’d settle for a limited run of the c454. I’d like a couple more.

Really wish there Is more reticle choices than mil-c. Just not what I want for a hunting rig. Hipedully they will offer it in moar, that wouldn’t be so bad. If they do, the 2.5-20 would be a nice replacement for my nxs 5.5-22.

Remains interesting that Nightforce hasn’t released any information yet.

Anybody handle them at the NRA show?