K16i vs NX8

[taliv]

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.

[Ironman8]

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]

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]

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?)

[Biggy]

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.

[JoshNC]

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.

[RHINOWSO]

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.

[JoshNC]

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]

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]

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.