Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 F1 vs ATACR 4-16x42 F1

[bowrunner81]

Hello All,

I am trying to decide between these two. I have checked out the NX8 2.5-20x50 but have not been able to locate an ATACR 4-16x42. I like the MOAR reticle so that will be what I go with. This will be going on a Browning 7prc. I have an Athlon 2.5-15 on it currently and wanted to upgrade to something more bullet proof. I have shot 1000 yards with my current scope and never needed more magnification. For those who have experience with these can you please give me some comparisons and experiences? I have read that people fine the NX8 finiky to setup and get into the glass due to a tight eye box. Have you experienced that and is that an issue? Also, I typically like low power scopes, so I would wonder if 4 power is low enough for me on the ATACR. Any experience with any of that is appreciated. They are on sale currently so I wanted to make a decision pretty soon.

Thanks,

Joey

 

[bowrunner81]

Honorable mention is the Leupold MK5 3.6-18

 

[ATL]

You are on the right track with NF, excellent scopes because of the unquestionable repeatability and durability. Those are the most important elements for a scope to have.

I have owned several NF scopes, including the NX8 4-32 and the ATACR 4-16. Nothing wrong with the NX8 line, but I prefer the ATACR between those two. The 4-16 is my favorite scope I own from NF.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Honorable mention is the Leupold MK5 3.6-18

Don't do this.

I prefer the ATACR

Do this.

 

[Shortschaf]

If money is no object ATACR 4-16 all the way

Had the 4-16 for a while and loved it. I admit I've only looked through the 2.5-20, but it was dreadful at max power

 

[LightFoot]

I have both these scopes. Each of them have been very reliable. The glass is a bit better on the ATACR. The locking turret on the 4-16x42 is nice going in and out of a scabbard or case. 20x is an advantage at the range but I haven’t found that it was needed in the field. (Neither is the 2.5x)

The ATACR is a better scope. If you’re looking to spend ATACR kind of money and want 20x, the 4-20x50 ATACR might be worth consideration.

But… you will not be disappointed if you save money and go with the NX8.


>>>——JAKE——>

 

[bowrunner81]

Thank you all for the replies! I really appreciate it.

 

[bowrunner81]

I have both these scopes. Each of them have been very reliable. The glass is a bit better on the ATACR. The locking turret on the 4-16x42 is nice going in and out of a scabbard or case. 20x is an advantage at the range but I haven’t found that it was needed in the field. (Neither is the 2.5x)

The ATACR is a better scope. If you’re looking to spend ATACR kind of money and want 20x, the 4-20x50 ATACR might be worth consideration.

But… you will not be disappointed if you save money and go with the NX8.


>>>——JAKE——>

Thank you for your opinion after owning both. One worry/concern I have about the NX8 over the ATACR is the eye box being finicky and hard to get into quickly. Have you noticed that on the NX8 compared to the ATACR?

 

[MidGAHunter]

I have both and prefer the ATACR overall. The eyebox on the NX8 is a little worse than the ATACR but I think that is largely overblown honestly. The parallax is more finicky on the NX8 as well. The NX8 is fine but if money is no object then the baby ATACR is a better option.

 

[SDHNTR]

I like the bigger 4-32 nx8 and found it more user friendly than the little one personally. About the last 12x is unnecessary, imo, but it’s there.

Ive not spent a ton of time behind an ATACR, but it is nice. I just don’t understand the need for a 34mm tube, ever. Especially for a hunting gun.

A 30mm ATACR or a NX5, and I would probably stop scope shopping forever!

 

[bowrunner81]

Well, money is definitely an object, and I'm not rich by any means haha. But, I dont have a many hunting rifles. I have one and a backup rifle/loaner, so this will be a one-time big scope purchase and I want to get it right. It seems like most of you folks are suggesting the ATACR, and I dont think I would be missing out on anything by going with the ATACR in 4-16x42 over the higher power scopes. Seems like it would legitimately be a lifetime type scope.

 

[swavescatter]

I have two NX8 4-32's and one ATACR 5-25 and would gladly trade it out for an NX8.

ATACR has better glass but I HATE the stupid rear zoom setup that rotates EVERYTHING, including the damn lens cap cover. If you set up the lense cap to flip up at minimum power, then zoom in for a shot the lense cap will block you from running the bolt.

The engineer that came up with that design should be fired and forced to tech edit instruction manuals for the rest of his life.

If you want to use lens caps, get the NX8. If you hate functional design go with the ATACR.

 

[bowrunner81]

I have two NX8 4-32's and one ATACR 5-25 and would gladly trade it out for an NX8.

ATACR has better glass but I HATE the stupid rear zoom setup that rotates EVERYTHING, including the damn lens cap cover. If you set up the lense cap to flip up at minimum power, then zoom in for a shot the lense cap will block you from running the bolt.

The engineer that came up with that design should be fired and forced to tech edit instruction manuals for the rest of his life.

If you want to use lens caps, get the NX8. If you hate functional design go with the ATACR.

I saw a video where they caps that come with it swivel, so you can make them go straight up at any magnification range. Is that true?

Does anyone else see the rotating eye piece as a hindrance with scope caps?

 

[swavescatter]

Yes, you can swivel them. So now running the zoom is a two step process while you've got an animal in the cross hairs. If you forget you'll be reminded by the bolt snapping the cover off or getting jammed up/failed ejections.

Stupid.

 

[mjspeers]

I echo what a lot of what has been said. I don’t have the 4-16, but an F2 5-25 ATACR. I prefer the 4-32 NX8 over the smaller NX8. The only real advantage to the 2.5 is the low end and shorter. I have one on my predator gun. If you can swing it and weight is not a concern, ATACR. The rotating eyepiece is slightly annoying but not a deal breaker. The 4-20x50 seems great as well.

 

[Pronghunter]

I have a few of possibly each. I’d definitely jump up to the NX8 4-32. It’s so much nicer than its little brother.

 

[mj23polaris]

Have both the nx8's both f1 and both mil xt, get the 4-32, it's a better scope. The fov and image with the 4-32 in the 12-20 mag range is far better than the 2.5-20 in the same range. I spend 90% of my shooting in that mag range.

Downside to nx8 imo is glass quality. I've shot rifles with mk5s, vx5/6s, vipers, credos, razor lhts. I'd put the nx8 glass better then a credo but not as good as the Leupold offerings. It's a durable reliable scope and if glass is a big deal get a atacr. If not save the money get nx8.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

 

[Xycod]

The 2.5x20 must be very inconstant, I’ve got a seller sample that runs with most anything glass wise, sold my atacr’s because of it. I was in the exact opposite camp in that the 2.5 was better in most ways that my 4x32’s, glass, fov, more forgiving, and so on. Again, inconstancy is all I can come up with.

 

[Ice-kub]

I bought the 2.5-20 and the comments about the eye box not being forgiving makes me wonder if people don't take note of cheek weld position and or practice actually getting behind the scope quickly. I haven't had an issue with it at 20x.

 

[SDHNTR]

I bought the 2.5-20 and the comments about the eye box not being forgiving makes me wonder if people don't take note of cheek weld position and or practice actually getting behind the scope quickly. I haven't had an issue with it at 20x.

This is largely a subjective matter. It’s not bad on a bench or controlled range situation. But in a rushed and/or contorted or less than ideal field position, it can be a challenge compared to a lot of other options. At least IMO.