Nightforce 4-16x42mm ATACR Field Evaluation Q&A

[BRTreedogs]

NF specs list the SHV 4-14x50 F1 as 4x on the lower end…is it really 4.5?

Offered in MOAR and MIL-R

No its probably 4.
There's so much out there I can't keep um all straight.

 

[Formidilosus]

Any chance of an nx8 review?

Yes Multiple. They work.

Going to be watching this one close, between this and the 3.5-15 NXS for my next rifle.

NXS’s are extremely solid. Here’s a 3.5-15x F1 from yesterday with the full drop eval, and then 23 more 36” drops for each shot, totaling a 30 round group with 38 drops- 32 of which were from 36 inches-



There used to be a 1 inch dot...

If I understand form correctly he states the swfa 3-9 is about as reliable as this atacr? It’s 19 ounces. If the Swfa has a top end range of 12 it would be about perfect in my eyes.

The SWFA fixed 6x and 10x, as well as the 3-9x, 3-15x, and 5-20x are all solid. Most of the time they pass the drop eval without issue, every once and a while an angle is just right when they hit and a turret is bent. They still work, and usually hold zero when it happens.

I could not say that they are as consistently reliable and durable as an NXS/ATACR but that is simply due to every NF being tested before it is shipped, and SWFA’s are not.

It quits at 10x is sfp and 30 vs 34mm.

You can buy a 4x fixed 1" tube leupold that is reliable if you don't dial it as well.

Let's compare apples to apples.

No Leupold hunting scope will hold zero through the drop eval. Not even the old fixed powers which I generally like.

A 2.5-10 nxs and a 4-16 atacr are not the same thing. Is the nxs as reliable?

Not close, but the same.

More reliable and durable. Splitting hairs for most, but NXS’s are very reliable scopes.

 

[BRTreedogs]

@Formidilosus I've seen you meantion nx8 failure in other threads..
Which made me immediately back out and not read more. I really like mine.

 

[freddyG]

A 2.5-10 nxs and a 4-16 atacr are not the same thing. Is the nxs as reliable?

Not close, but the same.

Nxs is the most reliable scope Nightforce made/makes.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus I've seen you meantion nx8 failure in other threads..
Which made me immediately back out and not read more. I really like mine.

Not a failure to hold zero. I have seen/had buddies have a couple of 2.5-20x NX8’s (out of a lot) that have had zero stops lock up, and one elevation turret get bound up. I have seen a lot of NX8’s used hard, the 2.5-20x might be the most problem prone “tactical” NF, but they are still better than almost anyone else’s best

 

[SDHNTR]

Leupold windplex

From what I've seen you post your really looking for a unicorn that doesn't exist.

I know I do not want a clean center post.

Yes, Windplex and Swaro 4W. And I’m well aware of my unicorn hunting.

I could handle some small dots or hashes on the vertical as a compromise, but I don’t want anything resembling a Christmas tree or large graduated hashes. Zeiss ZMOA2 is workable.

 

[Sako300]

How are the sightron IIIs?

 

[Formidilosus]

Meant to address this earlier…

My only real question was wouldn't it have been alot easier to post the only 2 scopes that work?
Swfa and Atacr

That’s not quite true. S&B makes some that generally work well, Bushnell, some Trijicons, etc. One of the reasons Ryan asked me to do this was to catalog what’s happening. I can tell people all day that such and such scope is good, or this one doesn’t hold zero, but in the end people don’t want to believe it. People have bought in that all scopes are equal and it’s just about the glass and features. This is not correct, and is easy to prove- so we are. This was perpetrated both by manufactures and lots of writers and “reviewers” as it’s in their interest to give good reviews.

 

[Formidilosus]

How are the sightron IIIs?

Sightrons generally work and function in shooting. My experience has been that they do not take abuse all that well, however I haven’t seen most of the new ones.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Meant to address this earlier…





That’s not quite true. S&B makes some that generally work well, Bushnell, some Trijicons, etc. One of the reasons Ryan asked me to do this was to catalog what’s happening. I can tell people all day that such and such scope is good, or this one doesn’t hold zero, but in the end people don’t want to believe it. People have bought in that all scopes are equal and it’s just about the glass and features. This is not correct, and is easy to prove- so we are. This was perpetrated both by manufactures and lots of writers and “reviewers” as it’s in their interest to give good reviews.

I know.
Im glad your doing it. I'm all for the BS stopping and real work being done.

Id rather my mind be changed from these reviews then after a failed hunt.

Money wise I guess ill get over it or die or do without.
Id just be money ahead if you had started a year ago.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies .

 

[Sako300]

Sightrons generally work and function in shooting. My experience has been that they do not take abuse all that well, however I haven’t seen most of the new ones.

Thankyou!

 

[MuleyFever]

.

The "drop test" is something never found on most scope reviews. I have always found it odd that this aspect of testing is almost always overlooked considering how critical it is to success in the field. I am glad this was included and should be standard on all scope evals.

Interesting that the most common question is how's the glass rather than how reliable is it.

 

[HaydenLane]

Meant to address this earlier…





That’s not quite true. S&B makes some that generally work well, Bushnell, some Trijicons, etc. One of the reasons Ryan asked me to do this was to catalog what’s happening. I can tell people all day that such and such scope is good, or this one doesn’t hold zero, but in the end people don’t want to believe it. People have bought in that all scopes are equal and it’s just about the glass and features. This is not correct, and is easy to prove- so we are. This was perpetrated both by manufactures and lots of writers and “reviewers” as it’s in their interest to give good reviews.

Any thoughts on or plans to test an Eotech Vudu? I haven’t found any info on durability or field use, but the 5-25x50 with the MD3 seems like everything I want in an all-purpose scope.

 

[Formidilosus]

Any thoughts on or plans to test an Eotech Vudu? I haven’t found any info on durability or field use, but the 5-25x50 with the MD3 seems like everything I want in an all-purpose scope.

Right now I’m just doing what I have and what Ryan wants me to. I don’t have one to test or I would.

 

[aron]

It would be nice to see some comparison in usability and features of the 4-16x42 ATARC to the 4-20x50 ATARC and NX8 line. I've not used any but am looking for a new robust hunting scope. I've see numerous posts of the NX8 having a very tight eye box. Going to an 8x erector has to give in other areas. Thank you for yours and Ryan's effort in these evaluations and the feedback across multiple scopes.

 

[Lawnboi]

NF specs list the SHV 4-14x50 F1 as 4x on the lower end…is it really 4.5?

Offered in MOAR and MIL-R

Edit: The SHV 4-14x56 F2 is MOAR only… but still listed as 4x on lower end.

The 50mm F1 is listed at 30oz and the 56mm F2 is listed as 27 oz…is that accurate?

The f1 shv is heavy, but if the magnification and mil r reticle works I think it’s a good scope. I honestly like it more than my nx8…. But mine is a moa scope and it has to go.

 

[RussDXT]

I have been looking for a link to the test. Sorry for the lack of rockslide familiarity but could anyone post it(likely again, there are a lot of reply’s to multiple threads here)?

Form, thank you for doing this. The confidence one can have in a scope knowing it stands up to your test is super reassuring.

Two scopes I’m wondering about are the sig whiskey 5’s and the Burris XTR 3’s.

Thanks!

 

[JAM7]

I have been looking for a link to the test. Sorry for the lack of rockslide familiarity but could anyone post it(likely again, there are a lot of reply’s to multiple threads here)?

Form, thank you for doing this. The confidence one can have in a scope knowing it stands up to your test is super reassuring.

Two scopes I’m wondering about are the sig whiskey 5’s and the Burris XTR 3’s.

Thanks!

I’ll second the XTR 3 request, seems to be very little discussion of this scope on this forum.

 

[BjornF16]

I have been looking for a link to the test. Sorry for the lack of rockslide familiarity but could anyone post it(likely again, there are a lot of reply’s to multiple threads here)?

Form, thank you for doing this. The confidence one can have in a scope knowing it stands up to your test is super reassuring.

Two scopes I’m wondering about are the sig whiskey 5’s and the Burris XTR 3’s.

Thanks!

Here is the explanation of scope testing and methodology:

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

www.rokslide.com

 

[alaska_bou]

Right now I’m just doing what I have and what Ryan wants me to. I don’t have one to test or I would.

Did your testing including any of the Zeiss models? The V4 and V6 are pretty well-liked. Curious how they stack up.