Rifle Scopes Anyone run a 16x for their main optic? regrets?

[Winny94]

I have a chance to buy a atacr at a good price, but it's only 16x. Does anyone run a 16x as a main optic? How often are you wishing you had 20-25x?

Edit: uses will primarily be steel work from 600-800. Paper work at 100/200. A few times a year I'll get access to 1200. A few local comps, but those are mainly for fun.

 

[Tnc]

I have a 27x and rarely ever go above 15x. 16 is plenty

 

[RTH1800]

Prior to the S&B Ultra Short’s introduction I used S&B 4-16x42 on most all of my LR VARMINT and target rifles. Loved them. Now all switched to ultra shorts.

I seldom shoot beyond 800 m. Most of my shots are 200-600 m due to terrain where I hunt.

Might help if you post on current or intendent use.

 

[itwillis]

In a field or tactical environment you won’t give up much if any at 16x. If you get past 12—15 wobble can really dick with your head and make you do stupid stuff like jerk the trigger.

20x and above is for shooting groups from a bench or pdogs.

 

[6point5CM]

I shoot between 12-18x 99% of the time in a match. I only go above that if I'm shooting a know your limits type stage, or doing load work up at 100. Even prairie dogs, I shoot on about 15x so I can have field of view. I'm already scanning in my scope for the next victim before the red mist has settled!

 

[vno.helix]

Just bought a Hensoldt 16x power at EuroOptic for under 2500. Was initially looking at an AMG but could not pass this on.
https://www.eurooptic.com/carl-zeiss-optronics-hensoldt-zf-4-16x56-nh1-front-focal-riflescope.aspx
Optical clarity is on par with my S&B and eyebox is even more forgiving. Power is not everything. I think it will serve me well.

 

[pineoak]

16x will get you out to 1000 easy shooting

mirage on warm days and off your barrel/can will affect you fairly quickly approaching 20x

that said, the flexibility of having more mag at your disposal is nice, especially if you spot for others

if your eyes are not struggling or failing, 16x will serve you well if you focus on the area the rounds are hitting/landing instead of the entire picture from edge to edge

how good is the deal? maybe the peace of mind of a higher mag range is worth the extra $$

if 90% of your shooting is under 1000, you should be fine

 

[Gil P.]

I only use the high mags when shooting paper. I rarely go above 15x at a match, and am usually between 12x and 15x regardless of the distance.

 

[bjay]

If you trying to hit that 12x12 plate first rd try..even up to 1200 yards even with 6x will do the job..if you trying shoot for group or doing load dev. That high magnification/sensitive reticle IMO is must..even to max power

 

[koshkin]

I use a 3-15x as my primary optic.

ILya

 

[wareagle700]

I like having the extra magnification in the 25x range for load work but off the bench I rarely dial above 18x-20x. Even a 3.5-15 gives me plenty of power to work with for long shots.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

I concur with the comments above. An overemphasis on magnification is a genuine rookie mistake (I've been there) - enhanced field of view, a flexible eyebox and staying on target under recoil are the rather large upsides of mid magnification ranges. Scopes that top out at 15x - 20x also tend to be smaller, and I enjoy not having to tote a baseball bat atop my rig if it can be avoided. As mentioned it's useful to have more magnification when group shooting but my scopes are rarely dialed above 18x

 

[RTH1800]

We still do not know the intended use. Above is good advice with the limited information given. If shooting RF at 100 yards folks use 45+ power in the right conditions.

 

[patriot07]

I ran an SWFA fixed power 16x for a long time. I only shot it out to 800 yards, but I never felt like I needed more mag. I have an SWFA HD 5-20 now, and I typically run it around 16x-18x just because I like the reticle thickness a bit more at those levels. The difference between 16 and 20 isn't hugely significant. 25x is definitely a step up though.

Unless you're shooting steel over 1,000 yards or group-shooting at 500+, then I think 16x is probably plenty, especially with good glass like an ATACR.

 

[BCX]

I also use that same Hens 4-16x56 NH-1 which I haven’t found a better scope. 1k plus hasn’t been a issue as the glass quality is top notch in my eyes. $2500 for that scope is a deal!! I think I paid $3300 for mine when they came out.

 

[Bacarrat]

I have several 5-25 S&Bs and just recently went down in power to a 3-12x50 S&B on my AW. No regrets. I also shoot a lot with a 8 and 9 power scope out of my MK12s. Magnification isn't everything.

 

[BCX]

8x at 1k on a B-27 Target no problem. Half the time on my 4-16 I turn them down to 10x when the mirage starts. I will take glass quality over high magnification any day.

 

[SRPowah]

I used a SWFA 3-15 for a couple years and never really felt like I needed more. Ran a NF 5-25 and Kahles 6-24 last year on my .300wm, and ended up with a S&B 5-20 which is perfectly fine for me.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Paper, steel or meat, 8-10X does all I need. Less is more in the glass world.

 

[gebhardt02]

I used to use 3-15X mag scopes for comps and when I first started PRS. I ran into too many stages where I needed more magnification. Often those were paper scored stages or even CB on the second day in low light conditions. Every point helps! I'd rather have a 20X minimum and be able to dial down for better FOV than be limited to only a 15X top end. I also usually tend to be around 12-15X for the majority of a PRS match, but still find a big advantage to more magnification being available when it's needed.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

For a field gun a 4-16 or 3-15 is perfect IMO. I've been hindered by "too much scope" in field situations more times than I can count because of limited FOV on lower mag. Sometimes 5x isn't low enough and a lot of FFP scopes tunnel or the reticle becomes useless at lower powers therefor I find optics with 6x and 7x+ erectors almost useless and ultimately consider them a marketing gimmick.

For a comp gun 10x is the absolute minimum I ever find myself using and most FFP scopes have the reticle plenty visible from there up,and it's rare I ever go above 18x. Sometimes I do though and it's usually beyond 900 yards when shooting 6mm's and the berm is wet or muddy. It can be hard to impossible to spot misses in those conditions on lower magnification so this is where some phenomenal glass and the ability to crank up to 25x really shines.

IMO the 4-16x42 ATACR F1 is probably the best all around optic out there, but it wouldn't be ideal for a PRS comp gun.

 

[Chasing3]

Do the 50mm objective lenses provide a substantially better field of view compared to the 42mm in the ATACR 4-16 line? Has anyone compared them side by side?

 

[koshkin]

Do the 50mm objective lenses provide a substantially better field of view compared to the 42mm in the ATACR 4-16 line? Has anyone compared them side by side?

http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=1673

 

[BallisticPrimate]

http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=1673

Really excellent review, @koshkin, thanks for taking the time - However, I did a double take when I read this: "Nightforce ATACR F1 is designed to compete against the Mark 6 and it is almost as short, but significantly longer." Assuming the edit is "significantly heavier". Cheers, BP

 

[koshkin]

Really excellent review, @koshkin, thanks for taking the time - However, I did a double take when I read this: "Nightforce ATACR F1 is designed to compete against the Mark 6 and it is almost as short, but significantly longer." Assuming the edit is "significantly heavier". Cheers, BP

Correct. I'll fix it.

 

[04JRB]

I typically run between 12x and 16x on my 4.5x -27x

 

[Winny94]

Op edited to include intended uses

 

[koshkin]

Given the intended use, 16x is plenty. If you can get a good deal, I'd go for it. It is a nice optic.

ILya

 

[JMGlasgow]

I have a Vortex Razor 2 3-18x50 on my 6.5 Creedmoor, and a Steiner Military 4-16x50 on my 308. The Steiner has been loaned out to most of my friends at one time or another for various reasons, and not one of them have thought they were at a disadvantage with 16x. It's one of my favorite optics.

The Vortex stays around 15x most of the time.

 

[S12A]

i use a 5-25 PMII as my main ,it lives between 10-16 . only ever on 25 for zeroing/groups at 100m . would gladly run a 4-16.

 

[Steel+Killer]

It’s like having 4 wheel drive in your truck I don’t use it often, but damn sure is nice to have when you do need it.

 

[ccoker]

I personally am very much interested in the new Kahles 3-18 that is due out this summer..
I think good glass trumps magnification and a good reticle is huge..
Out to 1K on 12" plates is easy with a good 12x scope

 

[Graywolf.260]

Truth, my Hensoldt 3-12x56 @975 is doing it all day.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

I think it’s a tough call. On one hand, the 4-16 ATACR is a fantastic scope, and would be one of my number one, top choices on a gasser, or a .308, where distances would be limited to about 1000 or 1200. I shoot my 5-25 and my 3-20 at about 16-18 very often. Mirage becomes an issue.

However....it IS nice to have more available. Just because I don’t always USE the 20x or 25x, doesn’t mean I don’t like having it available. Nice to have it if you need it, than be topped out all the time at 16x.
Based on your use of steel at 600-800, and paper at 100-200, I’d say go for it. It is a FANTASTIC optic. If I didn’t have my S&B 3-20, the NF ATACR 4-16 would be on my GA Precision gun for sure!

 

[Geno C.]

I actually had to turn my NXS down to 5.5 to get enough holdover to hit the mile plate a couple weeks ago. It really wasn't as big of a problem I thought it might have been. In steel shooting I very seldom am over 16-18 and more often than not I'm in the 5-8 range to start and crank up if needed, which isn't really too often. Like most others above, I do like having the extra mag to punch groups on paper but after that I don't use it hardly ever.

 

[Clearlight]

Under a k for big targets , 16 max is fine . ELR on good visibility days is a different matter ,
I want all the mag I can use , and have shot on 40 x with great success . For paper , again
high mag is great for group shooting or F class . If you are happy with half Moa , 16 will do .

 

[SLG]

Though it is nice to have more mag available, it is also nice to buy a scope appropriate for your use, including the weight and length (to a lesser extent, usually). I never let "nice to have features" interfere with getting the need to have features. The 4-16 ATACR is as good a scope as exists, for any kind of practical pursuit.

At way less money, I have to say that I have been impressed with the Bushnell LRHSi 4.5-18 from GAP. The glass does not compare to the ATACR, so lowlight performance is very different, but as a reliable scope with great user interface and features, it seems to be a home run. Cheap, too.

 

[USMC 308]

Again,

I'd rather have it and not need it......than need it and not have it.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

I've had most of the alpha glass but if forced to pick one scope for everything it would be difficult to skip 4-16 ATACR. Shot matches and hunted with that little scope and never felt it was lacking. That said I'm enjoying being able to dial up to 30x on my bushnell xrs 2 for load development. As always it helps to be accurate about what the intended use of an optic really is. When you know exactly what you need it's much easier to skip the fluff

 

[Nemain]

For me the Hensoldt 4-16X56 LT in H59 is the best all around scope out there. Superior glass, top notch illumination system, unreal eyebox, perfect tracking with very positive clicks, light weight, amazing low light performance and exceptional fit/finish. I’ve owned & used many high end optics and I’ve found that this scope/power range is everything I need.

 

[MACHTECH]

I just picked up a couple of these. I have never seen such a good deal on a Hensoldt as this. When I ordered mine last week, they still had 18 left.

 

[Basher]

I just picked up a couple of these. I have never seen such a good deal on a Hensoldt as this. When I ordered mine last week, they still had 18 left. View attachment 6901145
View attachment 6901146

Where from?

 

[Clearlight]

Love that Henny , we used to use Mildots and NH1s back in the day . H59 would be excellent ,
especially to get further out . Elevation travel was my only complaint .

 

[MACHTECH]

Eurooptic

https://www.eurooptic.com/hensoldt-...t-hensoldt-mil-reticle-end-user-required.aspx

They have CCW turrets as well which is rare for Hensoldt.

Also, this scope is identical in size as the 5-20 ultra short with the exception of the turret being a little taller.

 

[Clearlight]

$ 2300 for standard reticle , and $ 2900 for H59 . OP : personally I would take either of those
Hensoldts over the NF you mentioned every time , unless the NF was ridiculously cheap ...

 

[Wyzrd]

As others have already said, it’s nice having the extra magnification on the top end, but definitely not necessary, especially when you’re rocking really good glass like the Atacr 4-16, Hennies, etc... With that said, I just got rid of my Atacr F1 4-16. I loved the scope and will own another one one day, but it was moa, and I’m switching all my scopes to mils. Anyways, 16x was plenty for me to consistently reach out to 1030 yds (farthest my range goes), but sometimes I just like that 25+ magnification for shooting tiny little groups.

 

[BCX]

I have a Hensoldt 4-16 NH-1 reticle and i think i paid $3300 or $3500 a couple years ago. I prefer it over my SB PM11 5-25. How do you like the locking turrets.

 

[BCX]

$ 2300 for standard reticle , and $ 2900 for H59 . OP : personally I would take either of those
Hensoldts over the NF you mentioned every time , unless the NF was ridiculously cheap ...

Giving them away!! Now if i could only get one w a MSR reticle

 

[Nemain]

Here's an H59 on a 20" AXMC

And another on a TRG M10

And another on a KAC ECC

 

[just browsing]

How are the reticles in those Henny’s from EuroOptic? That’s about the only thing that’s kept me from pulling the trigger on one.