View Full Version : K16i vs NX8
Walker_Texasranger
06-13-20, 21:44
I’m looking to buy an LPVO. I don’t have anywhere near me that sells these so I can’t try them out. I’m interested in the K16i because from what I’ve read, it’s got the best field of view, glass, and eye box out there. I’m not crazy about the reticle choices though. It’s a tossup between the SM1 and the 3GR. More interested in the 3GR but I don’t like that second dot. Maybe it’s awesome but seems distracting.
I like the NX8 because it’s also light and small, and I like the reticle. But I know it can’t compare to the k16i as far as forgiveness and eye box and field of view and all that. But it keeps drawing me in for those pros I mentioned. Plus, I’m getting a Scalarworks Mount and you can get a combo from them with the NX8 for a nice discount.
I know the ATACR would solve a lot of those issues but it’s expensive and hard to justify for me.
It’s going on a LW 16” gun for a general purpose rifle that I’ll use for classes. Most of my optic experience is with aimpoints but I want magnification and my astigmatism makes the dot look awful and big.
Razor 1-10 has a better eye box and an extra 2x over the NX8, and an extra 4x over the Khales. Why not even consider it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Walker_Texasranger
06-13-20, 21:58
Razor 1-10 has a better eye PX and an extra 2x over the NX8, and an extra 4x over the Khales. Why not even consider it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True. I guess I should.
True. I guess I should.
I've had both the NX8 and now the Vortex 1-10x.
I can't compare directly since I no longer have the NX8. But, the Vortex has a bigger eyebox and FOV. The 1x is amazing on the Vortex.
I'd say go for the Vortex. Or whatever is cheaper and if the extra 2x doesn't matter.
I own 2 x NX-8s, so I have to say I'm a fan. ;)
In the end you'll have to decide what works for you and unfortunately it's typically not just a 'look at the spec sheet' drill, but a plunk some $$$ down and see how they work and look to you.
The Gen III is certainly on my radar but I'm not one to wait months for something brand new - rather I'll wait a year or so to see how it's still holding up, then buy without months of waiting or risk of beta testing.
Honestly if I were you (since you are doing the LPVO thing for the 1st time?), I'd get a used Razor II or PST II 1-6x24. Both are significantly cheaper than the optics you mention and if you score a Razor II for around $1k, you can likely flip it after a couple months for minimal loss. The PST II will be 85% of the Razor II and 50% the price.
That being said, I'm sold on the NX8 for what I want. Crazy bright dot and small size / weight for most shooting out to 400 yards. Yeah it's more like a normal scope than the Razor or Kahles "throw your head behind the scope" eyebox, but on a 5.56 rifle it's a non-issue for me (likely not so much on a 7.62x51 rifle, hence the reason I use a PST currently on one of those).
If you were local to me I'd let you play with my NX8s / PST II.
9-Hole Reviews has pretty good reviews on NX 8 and Gen III.
NX 8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0DcgtEay9s&list=PLRAERgkjmiuOF3EvvY8sZx37Cs5vHgDBJ&index=3
Razor Gen III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?8v=6eJhvCt5vY0&list=PLRAERgkjmiuOF3EvvY8sZx37Cs5vHgDBJ
K16i is excellent. Eye box is stellar. Glass is stellar. Illumination is good, not great but not really necessary due to the reticle design (Sm-1) and SFP. A friend had issues with two that had to go back to kahles, one that had the reticle orientation out of whack from the factory, the other with a similar problem after being run on a 23e beltfed MG. I have one on my go-to 5.56 carbine and love it. Prior to that it lived on a 308 gas gun and was well suited in that role.
NX8 is a great optic within the design parameters set out for it, namely a very compact and lightweight 1-8x. Illumination is thermonuclear bright. Reticle is very good and also useable without illumination. Glass is good. Eyebox is expectedly tight on 8x and some NX8 I’ve looked through had a decent amount of peripheral distortion on 1x, while others had none.
I have the ATACR 1-8 on my 308 gas gun and really like that optic. Awesome glass. Great eyebox. Great reticle. Great illumination (though not quite as good as nx8) with a reticle that’s useable without illumination.
The jury is still out on the vortex 1-10. A friend has one, so hopefully I’ll soon get some time behind it.
With optics I think you need to actually shoot them to see what you like. Unfortunately for most, this means buy it, try it, keep it if you like it, sell it and try something else if you don’t like it.
IMHO, from 0-400 yds, my $1719. *shipped and no tax*, K16i (bought new recently from Sport Optics). It still checks the most boxes *for me* of any scope out there. Fortunately when it comes to my toys, money is no object and if I were buying a LPV again today, for my needs (0-400 yds), I would buy it again. The K16i is just a hair lighter than the NX8, and it is 4.6 ounces lighter than the new 34mm tube Vortex 1-10x, which will also need a heavier 34mm mount. With my corrected vision, I need/want 6X when shooting out at 400yds. If I were shooting past 400yds very often, I would get the Vortex 1-10x and just deal with the extra weight of the scope and mount. I think most people will agree that deciding on ones optic choice for your weapon and it’s application is probably the most difficult part of the puzzle to figure out.
Walker_Texasranger
06-14-20, 11:42
^^^ Which reticle did you get? I’m leaning towards SM1.
I think the Razor Gen IIE would work well too. Seems like it gets within 95% of the k16 for a lot less money. Anyone know what the dot size is on the BDC reticle?
But yea thinking k16i with scalarworks Mount even though SW offers a Gen IIE and Mount combo for $1600. The k16 with SW Mount will be $2400.
SM-1 is a nice reticle for my needs. Big circle, tapered horizontal cross hairs draw your eye immediately to the center dot. Mil-based vertical stadia. Only thing lacking are horizontal stadia for wind holds, but out to 550 this can be done easily with Kentucky windage. It’s not perfect, but it’s very good.
^^^ Which reticle did you get? I’m leaning towards SM1.
I think the Razor Gen IIE would work well too. Seems like it gets within 95% of the k16 for a lot less money. Anyone know what the dot size is on the BDC reticle?
But yea thinking k16i with scalarworks Mount even though SW offers a Gen IIE and Mount combo for $1600. The k16 with SW Mount will be $2400.
.5 MOA. I have both the II-E and III and like them both a lot.
I own or have owned the vortex gen2 1-6, swaro Z6i 1-6, nf 1-4, nf 1-8 atacr , uso 1-8x.
I have played with the kahles 1-6 and the S&b and leupold LPVOs
My opinion is swaro has the best glass but worst reticle and illumination. Also not FFP
I love vortex and using their LPVO is sheer pleasure. But I know too many people using their warranty. I’d pick it for games but for something serious I wouldn’t trust it.
For $2800 the NF glass disappoints. But it’s usable and I trust it’s durability. I like their reticle and illumination the best.
I own or have owned the vortex gen2 1-6, swaro Z6i 1-6, nf 1-4, nf 1-8 atacr , uso 1-8x.
I have played with the kahles 1-6 and the S&b and leupold LPVOs
My opinion is swaro has the best glass but worst reticle and illumination. Also not FFP
I love vortex and using their LPVO is sheer pleasure. But I know too many people using their warranty. I’d pick it for games but for something serious I wouldn’t trust it.
For $2800 the NF glass disappoints. But it’s usable and I trust it’s durability. I like their reticle and illumination the best.
How many people do you know using their warranty and what’re they using it for?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
titsonritz
06-15-20, 02:55
The only place the the NX8 wins is footprint, between the two I'd recommend going with the Kahles K16i.
Personally, I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a Kahles K18i, I think the question is Kahles K18i, Vortex Razor HD Gen III 1-10 or Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24.
I've owned several k16i's and now an nx8. I prefer the nx8.
How many people do you know using their warranty and what’re they using it for?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
3, including the one i owned and sold to a friend. he used it in a carbine class a few weeks later and it went down in class. don't get me wrong though. they're an awesome optic and i plan to buy one of the gen 3 1-10x when things calm down.
Just something to keep in mind, just because the internet says the eyebox is much bigger on the K16i than the NX8 (which it is, can't get around that due to scope design) doesn't mean that the eyebox is unusable on the NX8.
I've had both K16i (SM1 reticle) and the NX8 (mil reticle) and have chosen the NX8 as my go-to LPVO for now. If something comes out that is heads and tails better while keeping the same or smaller footprint/weight, then maybe I'll consider it.
I made the compromise on eyebox for the durability and reticle design and footprint for a 12.5" "mini-recce". One of the top 3 criteria that I want in a LPVO is a bold reticle that can be used without illumination. Until you get 50,000 hours on a battery like an aimpoint, that will be one of my top requirements...and maybe even then it will still be a huge consideration since it serves as a failsafe.
Additionally, I run 1.93 mounts and if you listen to the internet, there would be no way I could get a consistent cheekweld on the NX8 with that high of a mount...but it's a non-issue for me. It's even less of an issue the more training time I have behind it.
I also currently have a PST2 and have done a couple drills head to head with the NX8 testing the eyebox and illumination on each scope. The only time eyebox was a noticeable difference between the two was when going strong shoulder to support shoulder transitions...though this is more of a training issue and is even questionable whether I would even do that "real world". Times on first shot and target transitions were similar between the two scopes when illumination was used, but there was a slight speed advantage with the NX8 when illumination was off. The bold reticle is very easy to pick up and this is why I chose it.
In the end, you just have to decide what is most important to you, which unfortunately means you may have to get them in hand to check out on your own.
Additionally, I run 1.93 mounts and if you listen to the internet, there would be no way I could get a consistent cheekweld on the NX8 with that high of a mount...but it's a non-issue for me. It's even less of an issue the more training time I have behind it..
Don’t want to derail this thread too much but ... for real! Cheek weld was no prob for me at all. I was worried about it and thought I’d wind up sending it back after reading online. I’m left to conclude the number of people who post about things they haven’t tried is even worse than I assumed
Just something to keep in mind, just because the internet says the eyebox is much bigger on the K16i than the NX8 (which it is, can't get around that due to scope design) doesn't mean that the eyebox is unusable on the NX8.
I've had both K16i (SM1 reticle) and the NX8 (mil reticle) and have chosen the NX8 as my go-to LPVO for now. If something comes out that is heads and tails better while keeping the same or smaller footprint/weight, then maybe I'll consider it.
I made the compromise on eyebox for the durability and reticle design and footprint for a 12.5" "mini-recce". One of the top 3 criteria that I want in a LPVO is a bold reticle that can be used without illumination. Until you get 50,000 hours on a battery like an aimpoint, that will be one of my top requirements...and maybe even then it will still be a huge consideration since it serves as a failsafe.
Additionally, I run 1.93 mounts and if you listen to the internet, there would be no way I could get a consistent cheekweld on the NX8 with that high of a mount...but it's a non-issue for me. It's even less of an issue the more training time I have behind it.
I also currently have a PST2 and have done a couple drills head to head with the NX8 testing the eyebox and illumination on each scope. The only time eyebox was a noticeable difference between the two was when going strong shoulder to support shoulder transitions...though this is more of a training issue and is even questionable whether I would even do that "real world". Times on first shot and target transitions were similar between the two scopes when illumination was used, but there was a slight speed advantage with the NX8 when illumination was off. The bold reticle is very easy to pick up and this is why I chose it.
In the end, you just have to decide what is most important to you, which unfortunately means you may have to get them in hand to check out on your own.
Also of note, the eyebox on the NX8 is a lot lower than you "think" it is, in many people's cases, especially on 1x.
Don’t want to derail this thread too much but ... for real! Cheek weld was no prob for me at all. I was worried about it and thought I’d wind up sending it back after reading online. I’m left to conclude the number of people who post about things they haven’t tried is even worse than I assumed
Absolutely. I call it carpet testing. It’s just as bad in the backpack hunting/camping/survival gear crowd. Guys get a new piece of gear, play with it in the living room for 5 mins and start writing reviews about it. Takes a while to read through enough BS to find the guys who actually use the stuff.
Also of note, the eyebox on the NX8 is a lot lower than you "think" it is, in many people's cases, especially on 1x.
I’m not sure I’m understanding the term “lower” in this context. Unless this is meant to be sarcasm and I’m just not catching it :confused:
Additionally, I run 1.93 mounts and if you listen to the internet, there would be no way I could get a consistent cheekweld on the NX8 with that high of a mount...but it's a non-issue for me. It's even less of an issue the more training time I have behind it.
This ^^^^ I run my NX8 in a 2.04 mount. No issues.
Does anyone really need or want 10x + 4.6oz (compared to the K16i) on a 16” 5.56?
Does anyone really need or want 10x + 4.6oz (compared to the K16i) on a 16” 5.56?
IMO, it depends on your intended engagement range. For my application with the 12.5" mini-recce, I'm looking 400 and in. I would be happy with 6x for that.
If you're trying to stretch to 600+, then yeah I'd want up to 10x on the top end and would deal with the weight penalty.
It's more about PID than shooting accuracy.
IMO, it depends on your intended engagement range. For my application with the 12.5" mini-recce, I'm looking 400 and in. I would be happy with 6x for that.
If you're trying to stretch to 600+, then yeah I'd want up to 10x on the top end and would deal with the weight penalty.
It's more about PID than shooting accuracy.
Exactly
The only time I’ve shot past 100 in the last year was with my 1-6 Razor. I don’t remember if the farthest target was at 350 or 400 but I could barely see it and in real life, I absolutely wouldn’t be able to PID anything at that distance. Everywhere else I’ve lived, probably not a huge consideration but my current location has miles of open and rolling terrain. If it was heavier than the 1-6, I may not be as interested, but it’s literally the same weight and I’ve yet to have an instance where I was sucking from the weight of the gun. But I workout every now and then so...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How many people do you know using their warranty and what’re they using it for?
Didn't you use Vortex Warranty for a Razor II?
I used it for a PST II.
Absolutely. I call it carpet testing. It’s just as bad in the backpack hunting/camping/survival gear crowd. Guys get a new piece of gear, play with it in the living room for 5 mins and start writing reviews about it. Takes a while to read through enough BS to find the guys who actually use the stuff.
Even worse with optics, when they look through it when it's not even on a rifle, much less even shot.
I’m not sure I’m understanding the term “lower” in this context. Unless this is meant to be sarcasm and I’m just not catching it :confused:
No sarcasm. It's physically positioned lower than most think. With a 1.93 mount you're maybe not affected, but most people will notice the unity improves if they look through what they THINK is the lower 1/3 of the eyebox of an NX8 on 1x. Try it.
Didn't you use Vortex Warranty for a Razor II?
I used it for a PST II.
I did, but I don’t remember ever hearing of any other instances where specifics were given which is why I was curious. He didn’t actually state why, even in the follow up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did, but I don’t remember ever hearing of any other instances where specifics were given which is why I was curious. He didn’t actually state why, even in the follow up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
my memory is fuzzy and i didn't want to give bad info. but since you're curious, i searched back through my texts to 2015 lol and the issue with the one i had and sold was image through the scope was blurry. at 6x, he couldn't even make out the target at 100 yards.
No sarcasm. It's physically positioned lower than most think. With a 1.93 mount you're maybe not affected, but most people will notice the unity improves if they look through what they THINK is the lower 1/3 of the eyebox of an NX8 on 1x. Try it.
I got behind it and moved my head slowly from top to bottom and vice versa and it seems dead center to me. Not sure how you’d get a “centered” full picture with your eye not in-line with the scope. To me, “eye box” means that you’re centered in the sight picture and the degree to which you can move your head up, down, left, and right while keeping an effective sight picture (minimal scope shadow) is what makes up the eye box. If you agree with that same definition, then I don’t see how center of the eye box can be off-line with the center of the scope.
Walker_Texasranger
06-17-20, 10:49
I appreciate the discussion on this. My 16” BCM MK2 upper is getting delivered today so I want to order an optic asap.
Still torn. The k16 seems awesome minus reticle choices to me so I’m still drawn to the NX8 for brightness, reticle, and size/weight. I like the package deal from Scalarworks with their mount so I’m thinking of trying it.
The Razor Gen 3 probably does everything the NX8 does but better though but drawn to the NX8 for some reason.
I was considering an Eotech EXPS3 with a G33 magnifier too but magnifiers hanging off the side of a gun just seem weird to me.
pointblank4445
06-17-20, 11:24
The only thing the NX8 does well is be small...
It's fine on 1x but much less forgiving than others for the 1x role. Absolutely hated trying to shoot anything at distance with it...and I normally push everything I've got to stupid limits. It's the 2.5-10x24mm all over again.
Personally, I think the NX8/ATACR circle-dot is terrible in many respects. The similar design in the Gen 3 vortex is part of the reason I've no interest in that optic for the time being in addition to some personal suspicions and preferences.
Optics like the Kahles, Vortex Gen 2 1-6 are still just fine for that general-purpose LPVO.
My list of LPVO's tested an eval'd over the last 13+ years is something like:
2x S&B Dual CC 1-8
1x S&B 1-8x CC SFP
2x S&B 1.5-8x26
1x S&B 1.5-6x20
1x S&B 1.1-4x24 SFP
6x S&B 1.1-4x20
2x S&B 1-8x24 EXOS
1x S&B 1.1-4x Zenith
3x Kahles K16i
2x Leupold CQBSS
1x Leupold 1.25-4x VX-R
1x NF 1-8x24 NX8
1x NF 1-8x ATACR
1x Vortex Raz HD 2
1x Vortex Raz HD 2 E
2x Steiner P4xi
I don't list these to qualify as an "SME" but to make this statement:
There is nothing close to a perfect 1-optic-to-rule them all. Not even close... There is not one that I've seen yet or see on the market without some crippling setback in one sense or another. The good ones have minimal setbacks and easy work-arounds...and at best should be thought of as "good for dmr/precision but can do CQB in a pinch" and vice versa.
The best you can do is evaluate in the following fashion:
- What capabilities are most important to you? CQB? Long range? Mid-range?
- What features are critical for the intended use?
- What features do you prefer (controls? illumination style? focal plane? BDC/Hold tree/turrets?)
The only thing the NX8 does well is be small...
It's fine on 1x but much less forgiving than others for the 1x role. Absolutely hated trying to shoot anything at distance with it...and I normally push everything I've got to stupid limits. It's the 2.5-10x24mm all over again.
Personally, I think the NX8/ATACR circle-dot is terrible in many respects. The similar design in the Gen 3 vortex is part of the reason I've no interest in that optic for the time being in addition to some personal suspicions and preferences.
Optics like the Kahles, Vortex Gen 2 1-6 are still just fine for that general-purpose LPVO.
My list of LPVO's tested an eval'd over the last 13+ years is something like:
2x S&B Dual CC 1-8
1x S&B 1-8x CC SFP
2x S&B 1.5-8x26
1x S&B 1.5-6x20
1x S&B 1.1-4x24 SFP
6x S&B 1.1-4x20
2x S&B 1-8x24 EXOS
1x S&B 1.1-4x Zenith
3x Kahles K16i
2x Leupold CQBSS
1x Leupold 1.25-4x VX-R
1x NF 1-8x24 NX8
1x NF 1-8x ATACR
1x Vortex Raz HD 2
1x Vortex Raz HD 2 E
2x Steiner P4xi
I don't list these to qualify as an "SME" but to make this statement:
There is nothing close to a perfect 1-optic-to-rule them all. Not even close... There is not one that I've seen yet or see on the market without some crippling setback in one sense or another. The good ones have minimal setbacks and easy work-arounds...and at best should be thought of as "good for dmr/precision but can do CQB in a pinch" and vice versa.
The best you can do is evaluate in the following fashion:
- What capabilities are most important to you? CQB? Long range? Mid-range?
- What features are critical for the intended use?
- What features do you prefer (controls? illumination style? focal plane? BDC/Hold tree/turrets?)
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Just something to keep in mind, just because the internet says the eyebox is much bigger on the K16i than the NX8 (which it is, can't get around that due to scope design) doesn't mean that the eyebox is unusable on the NX8.
I've had both K16i (SM1 reticle) and the NX8 (mil reticle) and have chosen the NX8 as my go-to LPVO for now. If something comes out that is heads and tails better while keeping the same or smaller footprint/weight, then maybe I'll consider it.
I made the compromise on eyebox for the durability and reticle design and footprint for a 12.5" "mini-recce". One of the top 3 criteria that I want in a LPVO is a bold reticle that can be used without illumination. Until you get 50,000 hours on a battery like an aimpoint, that will be one of my top requirements...and maybe even then it will still be a huge consideration since it serves as a failsafe.
Additionally, I run 1.93 mounts and if you listen to the internet, there would be no way I could get a consistent cheekweld on the NX8 with that high of a mount...but it's a non-issue for me. It's even less of an issue the more training time I have behind it.
I also currently have a PST2 and have done a couple drills head to head with the NX8 testing the eyebox and illumination on each scope. The only time eyebox was a noticeable difference between the two was when going strong shoulder to support shoulder transitions...though this is more of a training issue and is even questionable whether I would even do that "real world". Times on first shot and target transitions were similar between the two scopes when illumination was used, but there was a slight speed advantage with the NX8 when illumination was off. The bold reticle is very easy to pick up and this is why I chose it.
In the end, you just have to decide what is most important to you, which unfortunately means you may have to get them in hand to check out on your own.
All excellent points. The nx8 is a fantastic optic for what it is. The eyebox is tight but completely useable. If I was buying today and choosing between the k16i and nx8, I would choose the nx8 for all the reasons you mention.
Just more evidence that optics choices, from BUIS, RDS, though the wide range of variable optics, are very individual things - for the intended use to the person pulling the trigger.
On a 5.56 AR-15, the NX-8 does exactly what I want.
On 308 semis, not so much, likely because I don't shoot them enough to get good at controlling the recoil, so I prefer a more forgiving optic like a Vortex 1-6.
Just more evidence that optics choices, from BUIS, RDS, though the wide range of variable optics, are very individual things - for the intended use to the person pulling the trigger.
Very true. I think it’s important to buy and use things, decide what works and what doesn’t. Make changes as you identify your needs. If you’re always trying to research/analyze the ideal optic, it’s going to be analysis paralysis.
pointblank4445
06-18-20, 13:42
If you’re always trying to research/analyze the ideal optic, it’s going to be analysis paralysis.
Truth^
The law of diminishing returns kicked in for me long ago, and I don't want to think about the time or ammo pissed away that could've been put toward something productive...
vicious_cb
06-18-20, 14:18
Truth^
The law of diminishing returns kicked in for me long ago, and I don't want to think about the time or ammo pissed away that could've been put toward something productive...
Thanks for the input, since your inbox is full. I thought the Gen III had some major mfging defect or something. I doubt Ill be doing much past 400 yds with the Gen III, for my use its really more like a red dot with 10x magnifier than anything. Peering into windows, seeing whats going on in the backseat of a vehicle down the block ect. No "sniper" use here.
I got behind it and moved my head slowly from top to bottom and vice versa and it seems dead center to me. Not sure how you’d get a “centered” full picture with your eye not in-line with the scope. To me, “eye box” means that you’re centered in the sight picture and the degree to which you can move your head up, down, left, and right while keeping an effective sight picture (minimal scope shadow) is what makes up the eye box. If you agree with that same definition, then I don’t see how center of the eye box can be off-line with the center of the scope.
Maybe you are not one of those people. I found that for me, with a 1.70" mount, I could get full picture but the image was warped a bit, at my natural center. When I moved down a touch, I still had full picture but unity on 1x was much crisper.
Truth^
The law of diminishing returns kicked in for me long ago, and I don't want to think about the time or ammo pissed away that could've been put toward something productive...
Agreed as well, I see the lemmings rush to the latest and greatest - only to rush to the next latest and greatest, wash - rinse - repeat.
I know that some people who are either in the industry as trainers or legit pipe hitters need the latest stuff and train enough to make changes worth it - but I'd say 95% of people just buy for the instagram likes and never get good enough with any of their stuff. Be it optics, carry pistol, whatever.
pointblank4445
06-19-20, 21:56
Agreed as well, I see the lemmings rush to the latest and greatest - only to rush to the next latest and greatest, wash - rinse - repeat.
I know that some people who are either in the industry as trainers or legit pipe hitters need the latest stuff and train enough to make changes worth it - but I'd say 95% of people just buy for the instagram likes and never get good enough with any of their stuff. Be it optics, carry pistol, whatever.
The bitch of it is, there are certainly several areas of kit where one can indeed BUY the capacity for enhanced performance, and I believe the LPVO is one of them. It may not move at the speed of say NVG/IR tech, but it is a moving target in terms of advancing tech and I get why people struggle with it given that and typical industry/internet BS that muddies the waters.
I guess I would amend my earlier quite to down play to this:
I could have stopped well short and ended up with nearly the same conclusions a long time ago with about 66-75% certainty that I was doing what was right for me. What I did buy with my effort is that I'm able to sit here with 98-99% certainty that I did right by me. So I got that going for me...which is nice.
notorious_ar15
06-19-20, 22:06
I have a K16i with the 3GR reticle, which I find to be a nice compromise between a traditional scope and the circle-dot design. I'm getting older, and the "cross" seems to give me less eye strain.
So I got that going for me...which is nice.
And I said, hey! Llama! How about something, you know, for the effort?
pointblank4445
06-20-20, 17:09
And I said, hey! Llama! How about something, you know, for the effort?
I've always said you're a man of good taste, Josh...never failing to deliver.
Just something to keep in mind, just because the internet says the eyebox is much bigger on the K16i than the NX8 (which it is, can't get around that due to scope design) doesn't mean that the eyebox is unusable on the NX8.
I've had both K16i (SM1 reticle) and the NX8 (mil reticle) and have chosen the NX8 as my go-to LPVO for now. If something comes out that is heads and tails better while keeping the same or smaller footprint/weight, then maybe I'll consider it.
I made the compromise on eyebox for the durability and reticle design and footprint for a 12.5" "mini-recce". One of the top 3 criteria that I want in a LPVO is a bold reticle that can be used without illumination. Until you get 50,000 hours on a battery like an aimpoint, that will be one of my top requirements...and maybe even then it will still be a huge consideration since it serves as a failsafe.
Additionally, I run 1.93 mounts and if you listen to the internet, there would be no way I could get a consistent cheekweld on the NX8 with that high of a mount...but it's a non-issue for me. It's even less of an issue the more training time I have behind it.
I also currently have a PST2 and have done a couple drills head to head with the NX8 testing the eyebox and illumination on each scope. The only time eyebox was a noticeable difference between the two was when going strong shoulder to support shoulder transitions...though this is more of a training issue and is even questionable whether I would even do that "real world". Times on first shot and target transitions were similar between the two scopes when illumination was used, but there was a slight speed advantage with the NX8 when illumination was off. The bold reticle is very easy to pick up and this is why I chose it.
In the end, you just have to decide what is most important to you, which unfortunately means you may have to get them in hand to check out on your own.
Would you mind showing me a picture of where you put your nx8 on your upper?
Would you mind showing me a picture of where you put your nx8 on your upper?
Are you talking about fore/aft position? This is based on stock position/length of pull and eye relief, so where I put it may not be where you put it. Or is there something else you want to see?
I was told that people put their nx8 close to the front of the upper receiver( similar to an aimpoint ) instead of the rear of the tube being flush(ish) to the charging handle.
I don't know if that made sense.
If you shoot nose to charging handle then yeah you’d have to push it forward and probably use an extended mount. The scope itself is longer than the upper receiver btw. Mine is about as dead flush to the back of the upper receiver as you can get (charging handle sticks out maybe another 1/4”. The front of the objective falls about at slot #4 on the rail.
I shoot with my stock on position 3 on an A5 tube btw.
The NX8 does have shorter eye relief compared to something like a Razor. And come to think of it, I’ve seen most NX8 setups falling about where mine does on the back of the receiver.
For comparison, my PST2 rides on a different upper that sits about a half inch further forward (rear of ocular) compared to the NX8.
If you shoot nose to charging handle then yeah you’d have to push it forward and probably use an extended mount. The scope itself is longer than the upper receiver btw. Mine is about as dead flush to the back of the upper receiver as you can get (charging handle sticks out maybe another 1/4”. The front of the objective falls about at slot #4 on the rail.
I shoot with my stock on position 3 on an A5 tube btw.
The NX8 does have shorter eye relief compared to something like a Razor. And come to think of it, I’ve seen most NX8 setups falling about where mine does on the back of the receiver.
For comparison, my PST2 rides on a different upper that sits about a half inch further forward (rear of ocular) compared to the NX8.
That helps me very much! Thank you!
That helps me very much! Thank you!
Awesome, glad that helped!
Walker_Texasranger
06-22-20, 12:17
I’ve decided on the Vortex Razor HD Gen II E. Even though the k16i might be better, I like the reticle in the Vortex better.
Just waiting for Scalarworks to get their Mount/optic back in stock. It’s a couple hundred cheaper then buying the optic and mount separate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.