Picked up a used NF ATACR last week and was kind of blown away by how much of the inside of the scope I could see while looking through the optic. Is this a common thing with these? I’ve owned quite a few nice optics and don’t think I’ve ever seen one where there was this much “tunnel vision.”
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes ATACR 4-16x42 Question
- Thread starter adavis1138
- Start date
Were you looking through the objective? 
I wish it was that simple—and this why I feel like I must be missing something. This just isn’t what I expected from this scope.Were you looking through the objective?
If you haven't mounted it yet, you don't know.
But I'll cut to the chase here- that optics a POS.
But I'll be a gentleman and give ya $1200 for it
But I'll cut to the chase here- that optics a POS.
But I'll be a gentleman and give ya $1200 for it
Mounted, eye relief is spot on, and the reticle is crisp.If you haven't mounted it yet, you don't know.
But I'll cut to the chase here- that optics a POS.
But I'll be a gentleman and give ya $1200 for it
Dunno what to tell ya man- I've owned a couple of them and regret letting them go. The best do-all optic as far as I'm concerned. Definitely spend some time playing with the diopter.
You won't get hurt if you decide to list it. They hold value like nothing else.
Rifle Scopes preferences are subjective, that's for sure.
You won't get hurt if you decide to list it. They hold value like nothing else.
Rifle Scopes preferences are subjective, that's for sure.
I get it—I was just shocked to be unimpressed with this one. Compared to a t6xi it seems like a total overspend—but there’s not a bad review out there on this thing. This is about how it looks (not my pic).
I’ve never owned the scope but I’ve almost bought it no less than 10 times. I personally hate it when scopes have what I call a “framed in” picture. I think this is a combination of a small FOV and an overly built eye piece but I don’t really know.
Speaking of the T6xi, I happen to jump off my Razor Gen 2 and onto a T6xi and I was kinda impressed. The glass on the objective lense felt like it touched the edge of the scope body. You almost couldn't see any of the objective lense body. The glass was super clear too.
The ATACRs I've looked through have all had that tunnel vision effect.
Just the way they are designed.
Just the way they are designed.
I was surprised by how much tunneling I have with my ATACR F1 5-25x56, but the glass seems to be really nice from what I can tell (haven't had a chance to look through it outside yet).
I know it's from US Optics, but I believe that Nightforce and S&B do the same thing, hence the tunneling. TL;DR if you optimize a scope for higher FOV at higher magnification, you get tunneling.
Both my main scopes (ATACR 7-35 and USO FDN 25X) have tunneling. It doesn't bother me, or my buddies who run ATACRs, but I get it if it bothers you too much. We all have preferences, and I'll respect that.
My Kahles scopes are the same way. The Helia KX is not, but all my K-series scopes are. The K318i is not as bad as the K624i scopes, but still thought it was a bit odd, since Vortex Razors aren’t like that, and neither is my Zeiss LRP S3 6-36x56… And come to think of it, my Burris XTR-2i 5-35x50 and XTR-3i 5.5-30x56 scopes don’t really have any tunneling , either…
I don't think the OP was referring to tunneling (the 4-16 doesn't tunnel), more the effect of looking through a tunnel throughout the whole mag range.
Some people refer to it as seeing the scope body.
It's the eyepiece design that does this, some scopes are known for this effects, whereas others are known for giving a more HUD type display.
Some people refer to it as seeing the scope body.
It's the eyepiece design that does this, some scopes are known for this effects, whereas others are known for giving a more HUD type display.
My experience with my 4-16x42 ATACRs has been the same as the OP. The ATACR does not tunnel, but I do experience a relatively substantial amount of scope body around the edge of the picture. For me, tunneling refers to reducing magnification and not gaining field of view.
For contrast, my 4-20 ZCO slightly tunnels from 4x to about 4.5x, but you see basically no scope body throughout the mag range. The 4-16 ATACR does not tunnel, but you see a large amount of scope body throughout the mag range.
For contrast, my 4-20 ZCO slightly tunnels from 4x to about 4.5x, but you see basically no scope body throughout the mag range. The 4-16 ATACR does not tunnel, but you see a large amount of scope body throughout the mag range.
What the image in post #7 above is showing is a thick periphery of the sight picture, not necessarily tunneling. It's what Secant mentions above, some scopes do a much better job at eliminating as much of the periphery as possible. You want one of the best at this then check out the ZCO 4-20, very thin periphery. That being said, having a thicker periphery won't allow to hit targets any better, but our brains do perceive the thinner periphery to be more pleasing and we often think a scope is better just because of this phenomenon. Similar can be said about edge to edge sharpness, our eyes like to see the whole image being sharp as we tend to be distracted by out of focus portions. That being said, the ATACR 4-16x42 is an excellent scope optically and mechanically.
Just throwing this out there. I just picked up a new 3.6-18x44 Leupold mark5, and to my eye the NF ATACR 4-16x42 is just as easy to get behind and has a lot better glass. For a similar price in illuminated scopes I’ll take an ATACR.
I also agree, having had both. ATACR for the win every time. The Mk 5 3.6-18 is nice but the ATACR is nicer.
A guy at the range wanted to look thru my 4-16 and 7-35. He couldn't stand the thick periphery. I hadn't even noticed it until he pointed it out. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
In my my case, the thick periphery hides the sad leprechauns that follow me wherever I go.
