NX8 4x32x50 vs ATACR 4-16-42

[Formidilosus]

The irony of this statement is that much of the Nightforce reputation for bulletproof durability is based on their very aggressive marketing about it.

The difference, is NF’s marketing is about something that is real and observable. Not fluff.

I wish NF would do a revamp of their ATACR line because it's pretty outdated and could use new glass (color isn't great, depth of focus is just okay, FOV sucks), new zerostop system,

How does any of that make something outdated? It’s an aiming device, not a computer. It may be a surprise, but the market and users that NF is really built around don’t care all that much about minute differences in “glass”, or DOF unless terrible, etc.

and an ocular that doesn't annoyingly rotate.

It’s for a reason. Again, PRS shooters maybe not. For diving, jumping, and heavy glove use, the rotating ocular is easier/better. I don’t like” it, but it recognize its purpose.

I recently bought an ATACR 5-25x56 for what will end up being a PRS rifle and ended up returning it (and ordering another Razor G3) because the stepdown in optical quality was too steep for hypothetical durability increase.

So you’ve had targets that you couldn’t see with a NF but you could with a G3 Razor?

I think the mythologizing of the Nightforce durability allows them to be complacent in the market because they can coast on just that.

It’s not a myth at all if you are using scopes right to the failure point. PRS isn’t that. What you consider “complacent”, the base market of NF generally considers “features”.

When what I'd love for them to do is to make it easy to choose them especially in the over $2,000 price range.

It is easy to choose them- for hard field use with dedicated medium and long range rifles. Why does every company need to cater to the PRS market? PRS scopes absolutely suck for field use. Reticles are too thin, magnification range is too large, magnification is too high, “features” that only add complication, etc, etc. PRS is so specialized how, that it is almost to the level of bench rest when it comes to applicability to field rifles.

 

[JohnJohnson]

It may be a surprise, but the market and users that NF is really built around don’t care all that much about minute differences in “glass”, or DOF unless terrible, etc.

I'm very aware that NF's market is people wanting the most durable scope, to the point they're willing to compromise on some other stuff. I don't believe it needs to be a compromise if they use whatever optical magic they put in the ATACR 7-35 on the other scopes in the ATACR line. They've already done it to the 7-35. I'd be interested to hear from them about how much that would increase prices though.

So you’ve had targets that you couldn’t see with a NF but you could with a G3 Razor?

In the sense of significantly different FOV during target acquisition/transition, kind of? The NF 5-25 on 5 power has 18.7' FOV at 100 yards, and the R3 has 21.3' on 6 power. So its FOV on 6 power is a little over 10% better than that particular NF on 5 power. Not entirely sure how that translates to common powers used in matches like 12-15x but I know there's a difference. I'm unsure if NF has more cautiousness in regards to the Swarovski FOV patent and that may play a role or what. I'm reasonably sure the R3 violates Swaro's patent whereas I don't think the NF does. That, the annoying ocular, better image quality in the R3, and the painless zerostop system on the R3 were the deciding factors for me.

Again, it was for a match scope. When it comes to buying a durable hunting scope as I said I'll likely choose a 4-16 ATACR. But if, in the meantime, they update the image quality to be on par with the 7-35's that'd be pretty cool.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm very aware that NF's market is people wanting the most durable scope, to the point they're willing to compromise on some other stuff. I don't believe it needs to be a compromise if they use whatever optical magic they put in the ATACR 7-35 on the other scopes in the ATACR line. They've already done it to the 7-35. I'd be interested to hear from them about how much that would increase prices though.

In the sense of significantly different FOV during target acquisition/transition, kind of? The NF 5-25 on 5 power has 18.7' FOV at 100 yards, and the R3 has 21.3' on 6 power. So its FOV on 6 power is a little over 10% better than that particular NF on 5 power. Not entirely sure how that translates to common powers used in matches like 12-15x but I know there's a difference. I'm unsure if NF has more cautiousness in regards to the Swarovski FOV patent and that may play a role or what. I'm reasonably sure the R3 violates Swaro's patent whereas I don't think the NF does. That, the annoying ocular, better image quality in the R3, and the painless zerostop system on the R3 were the deciding factors for me.

Again, it was for a match scope. When it comes to buying a durable hunting scope as I said I'll likely choose a 4-16 ATACR. But if, in the meantime, they update the image quality to be on par with the 7-35's that'd be pretty cool.

If you’re happy with the Razor Gen 3, why do you want or care for NF to make the same scope? Why do users need the same scope from 7-8 different companies?

 

[JohnJohnson]

If you’re happy with the Razor Gen 3, why do you want or care for NF to make the same scope? Why do users need the same scope from 7-8 different companies?

"Again, it was for a match scope. When it comes to buying a durable hunting scope as I said I'll likely choose a 4-16 ATACR. But if, in the meantime, they update the image quality to be on par with the 7-35's that'd be pretty cool."

Because, while I'll do a few very specific types of hunting with it, I don't consider the R3 a hunting scope. I mean it's 45 ounces after all and who needs 36 power on a hunting scope? So having the improved image quality of the 7-35, if it's possible for them to do it in the 4-16, would be pretty cool since that's a more practical hunting scope. I have no idea how they accomplished it in the 7-35 or if it would be feasible in the 4-16. But if it could be done, it'd be cool.

 

[RobHazmat89]

If you’re happy with the Razor Gen 3, why do you want or care for NF to make the same scope? Why do users need the same scope from 7-8 different companies?

Why are you against NF using better glass? They charge over $2000 for most of their optics. At that price point they shouldn't be cheap on their glass.

 

[Formidilosus]

"Again, it was for a match scope. When it comes to buying a durable hunting scope as I said I'll likely choose a 4-16 ATACR. But if, in the meantime, they update the image quality to be on par with the 7-35's that'd be pretty cool."

Because, while I'll do a few very specific types of hunting with it, I don't consider the R3 a hunting scope. I mean it's 45 ounces after all and who needs 36 power on a hunting scope? So having the improved image quality of the 7-35, if it's possible for them to do it in the 4-16, would be pretty cool since that's a more practical hunting scope. I have no idea how they accomplished it in the 7-35 or if it would be feasible in the 4-16. But if it could be done, it'd be cool.

Apologies. I was referring to your complaints about the ATACR series for PRS- meaning why does the market want the same exact scope from 7-8 manufactures?


As for the 4-16x ATACR- glass quality isn’t an issue with them. It has excellent resolution, good color rendition, and very good brightness. The difference between the 4-16x42mm F1 ATACR glass and a bit anything in the 15-16x range is minuscule. I have a ZCO 4-20x and side by side use, it’s about half and half whether someone prefers one or the other.
People make a massive deal out of things that you have to use a chart and specifically try to see the slightest difference at all.

 

[Formidilosus]

Why are you against NF using better glass? They charge over $2000 for most of their optics. At that price point they shouldn't be cheap on their glass.

Because people are seeing what they want to see and NF isn’t using “cheap” glass. You are repeating BS that you’ve heard or been told.
If you took the reticles out and taped the scope up, almost no one would be able to say which scope is which between an ATACR, S&B, top Zeiss, ZCO, TT, etc. It’s all BS in your head. The difference between any of the top scopes is fractions of a percent- not some massive or noticeable thing.

A few years ago I took a scope with standard mil dot reticle in it, taped it all up so no one could tell what brand it was, and told a group of optics dorks that it was a prototype scope from one of the alpha companies. Let each person focus it and compare it side by side with most of the top scopes on the market- S&B, Zeiss, NF, Swarovski, etc. Over half wrote down that it had a “great to phenomenal” image. The other half wrote that it was as good as most, or indistinguishable from the other top scopes. They looked through them all from broad daylight to dark, and no one thought the prototype was anything other than “very good”. The “prototype” was an SWFA fixed 10x.


I’ve done the exact same thing with a NF NXS 3.5-15x and the results were very similar- though some did note that the color “pop” wasn’t as good as some others.

People see what they want to see and lie to themselves about most things.

 

[SDHNTR]

I went through this and bought the NX8, only because I have no use for a 34mm tube in a hunting rifle. The eyebox issues of the 4-32 nx8 are a non issue. The 2.5-20 is the one that’s problematic. That said, I also have little use for the top half of the mag range. In the middle, where it gets used most, the scope works great.

Now, if NF were to ever make 30mm tube 4-16x ATACR’s, I would back up the truck and own one on nearly ever gun.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Apologies. I was referring to your complaints about the ATACR series for PRS- meaning why does the market want the same exact scope from 7-8 manufactures?

That's one I'm still trying to wrap my brain around for the 6-36 or 7-35 scopes like the ATACR 7-35, Zeiss 6-36, Razor 6-36, and I think there are a couple others now. As for the 7-35 ATACR it's this weird thing where people say that the 5-25 ATACR's image quality is best on about 8 power. Whereas the 7-35 ATACR's image quality is best on 14 power, I presume because of the higher upper magnification range? So better image quality in the magnification range people use more in matches (12-18x). That's what some of the PRS guys using 7-35 ATACRs have said but I have no idea how true it is or how it translates over to other scope manufacturers who make scopes with that approximate magnification range.

In regards to a hunting scope when I get one again (poor at the moment), I'm concerned with FOV and color fidelity. Since, as far as I can tell, the color contrast/fidelity has a lot to do with low light usability. Plus I'm a newly formed coues deer addict and acquiring them in my scope on a shaded hillside this past fall was very difficult. I was using an LHT too, so not bad image quality.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's one I'm still trying to wrap my brain around for the 6-36 or 7-35 scopes like the ATACR 7-35, Zeiss 6-36, Razor 6-36, and I think there are a couple others now. As for the 7-35 ATACR it's this weird thing where people say that the 5-25 ATACR's image quality is best on about 8 power. Whereas the 7-35 ATACR's image quality is best on 14 power, I presume because of the higher upper magnification range? So better image quality in the magnification range people use more in matches (12-18x). That's what some of the PRS guys using 7-35 ATACRs have said but I have no idea how true it is or how it translates over to other scope manufacturers who make scopes with that approximate magnification range.

The issue is that most people judge “image” quality with how well they can see the target- and how well they can aim at a target. Reticle visibility matters here- as you can have exactly the same scopes with different reticles, and most will rate their “glasses differently. In multiple cases I have seen people send scopes in to get the reticle swap and swear that they replaced the glass with better, when all it really was is a more visible reticle. Take the reticles out of the 5-25x and 7-35x ATACR’s, and cover them up and almost no one could see any difference.

In regards to a hunting scope when I get one again (poor at the moment), I'm concerned with FOV and color fidelity. Since, as far as I can tell, the color contrast/fidelity has a lot to do with low light usability. Plus I'm a newly formed coues deer addict and acquiring them in my scope on a shaded hillside this past fall was very difficult. I was using an LHT too, so not bad image quality.

Again, the difference between any top scopes are fractions of a percent. The only currently made scope that I have ever said “fuqq” when I look through them are the Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm’s. And it’s not just me, without saying anything to them, almost everyone comments on them. The ZP5 THLR model is the scope for Coues for me.

 

[RobHazmat89]

Because people are seeing what they want to see and NF isn’t using “cheap” glass. You are repeating BS that you’ve heard or been told.
If you took the reticles out and taped the scope up, almost no one would be able to say which scope is which between an ATACR, S&B, top Zeiss, ZCO, TT, etc. It’s all BS in your head. The difference between any of the top scopes is fractions of a percent- not some massive or noticeable thing.

A few years ago I took a scope with standard mil dot reticle in it, taped it all up so no one could tell what brand it was, and told a group of optics dorks that it was a prototype scope from one of the alpha companies. Let each person focus it and compare it side by side with most of the top scopes on the market- S&B, Zeiss, NF, Swarovski, etc. Over half wrote down that it had a “great to phenomenal” image. The other half wrote that it was as good as most, or indistinguishable from the other top scopes. They looked through them all from broad daylight to dark, and no one thought the prototype was anything other than “very good”. The “prototype” was an SWFA fixed 10x.


I’ve done the exact same thing with a NF NXS 3.5-15x and the results were very similar- though some did note that the color “pop” wasn’t as good as some others.

People see what they want to see and lie to themselves about most things.

Sure ya did lol. Did you care to document any of this?

 

[JohnJohnson]

The only currently made scope that I have ever said “fuqq” when I look through them are the Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm’s. And it’s not just me, without saying anything to them, almost everyone comments on them. The ZP5 THLR model is the scope for Coues for me.

Does all the business of the reticle get in the way or in use is it ignorable? The MR4 reticle seems like more my jam but its clutter is just the christmas tree below the center so not sure how much better it would be for me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Does all the business of the reticle get in the way or in use is it ignorable?

Once you shoot a bit with it, you don’t even see the other stuff.

 

[tibo]

I have several,
1. You don’t ever shoot at hi mag anyway.
2. Eye box issues on the NX8 are largely overblown. Either you have good mechanics or you don’t.
3. No vortex scope holds up to the drop evals, and having owned many and no longer do Id trade a slightly tighter eye box for a scope that works and does not loose zero by riding in a truck.
4. Having switched to SWFA, NF, and Trijicon I haven’t used any warranty once (with a larger sample size of scopes). With vortex I sent back almost every scope several times. Vortex is a marketing company that happens to sell scopes.

Eye box issues totally overblown, never been an issue

 

[Dobie07]

Another point to consider: I compared a nightforce atacr 4-16x42 side by side with trijicon tenmile 3x18x44 and they are much closer than the price would indicate. Mine had the moa-xt reticle and my biggest complaints for nightforce were that the center dot was very hard to see for me on less than 13 power (the tenmile is a bit more bold and usable on more powers), the whole eye piece rotates which was a bit annoying with flip covers and the eye relief compared to the tenmile was noticeably shorter. I will say the glass clarity was slightly better and turret feel was also better on the nightforce, but at nearly double the cost and 6 oz heavier, I’m not sure the value is there imo. I’m anxiously awaiting the maven rs1.2 restock to compare as well.

 

[atmat]

Sure ya did lol. Did you care to document any of this?

I love when new guys get all up in arms about Form.

 

[mrcvelo]

Thank you @Formidilosus for all of the extensive reviews, although they will cost me some $. I'm going to sell my new SFP Leica 3-18x Amplus 6 and move to FFP MiL reticle in an ATACR 4-16 or the Maven RS1.2. I read in one of the many scope threads that the Maven renders the Trijicon Tenmile obsolete so I scratched that from the list. The Maven is out of stock for a while and the ATACR is ~$800 more at ~$2,100 so I am torn.

If anyone has other FFP, Mil reticle scopes I should consider please let me know. Will use to hunt at 0-600 yards and steel for fun out to 1000yds. Will hunt Coues, Mule deer, elk, coyotes and want an all purpose and very durable scope. I would love to try a competition at some point but my main focus is hunting.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Once you shoot a bit with it, you don’t even see the other stuff.

I forgot to ask, was there ever any update on the ZCO test after you put it in good rings?

 

[Formidilosus]

Thank you @Formidilosus for all of the extensive reviews, although they will cost me some $. I'm going to sell my new SFP Leica 3-18x Amplus 6 and move to FFP MiL reticle in an ATACR 4-16 or the Maven RS1.2. I read in one of the many scope threads that the Maven renders the Trijicon Tenmile obsolete so I scratched that from the list. The Maven is out of stock for a while and the ATACR is ~$800 more at ~$2,100 so I am torn.

If anyone has other FFP, Mil reticle scopes I should consider please let me know. Will use to hunt at 0-600 yards and steel for fun out to 1000yds. Will hunt Coues, Mule deer, elk, coyotes and want an all purpose and very durable scope. I would love to try a competition at some point but my main focus is hunting.

Both the 3-18x Tenmile And especially the RS1.2 mil scopes are better field/hunting scopes and reticles than anything NF offers. The 4-16x42mm ATACR is a great scope, but the reticles offered for general hunting are sub par.

I would wait and get the RS1.2 personally.

 

[Formidilosus]

I forgot to ask, was there ever any update on the ZCO test after you put it in good rings?

Haven’t been over to get the rings if they have even come in yet. The issue with a 36mm tube is very limited ring options and you can’t just go to Cabelas to get them.