Rifle Scopes ATACR 4-16X50 F1 vs the 42mm version...

[TacticalPlinker]

50mm vs 42mm 4-16 ATACR. Are there any "downsides" of stepping up to the larger objective version? Obviously there should be a bump in low light and possibly eyebox in 50mm . But the elevation turret system changes from locking low profile to what looks like a standard NXS version.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Getting ready to grab one for a KRG WHISKEY 3 build in 6.5 Creedmoor.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Geno C.]

It'll be higher over the bore and a bit heavier. That's the only down side I see

 

[Crews]

As already mentioned, regarding form factor it's definitely worth noting that you're giving up the low profile turret, it's a bit longer, and will have to mount higher. As far as I'm concerned, those are some of the major reasons I bought the 4-16x42 for a field/hunting rifle.... and would pick it again.

The experts will have to chime in on any perceived increases in optical performance. I'm curious too, but at the end of the day it's a Nightforce either way. That means you'll be picking between really good and really good, and it might just boil down to the form factor.

 

[B-P-UU]

There aren't any really low profile 34mm rings, so the scope height will be the same for both.. I'm running .856" APA's (lows) with my x42 ATACR and will be able to use the same with the x50 as well. I like the tall profile ATACR turret on my match (7-35) scope but really like the low profile locker on the x42 for hunting. I would have liked to see the locking turret on the new one, but I'm biased based on my application.

I'm looking forward to some field reports.

 

[Falar]

I'm looking hard at one of these right now myself in Mil-C. I haven't owned a Nightforce since a 3.5-15x56 NXS back in the early days.

I too was dismayed to see the turret change. I have a SPUHR SP 4616 so the height was gonna be the same no matter what. With the taller turret I won't be putting an RMR on the front ring though.

8mm more objective with a taller turret and no lock

or

3 oz less and .5" shorter and a shorter, locking turret

Man, I'm really struggling here. Also it seems Nightforce must be hell on MAP these days as they are the EXACT same price everywhere. Any recommendations?

 

[TacticalPlinker]

So if I break it down into simpler terms. Is there really a huge difference in low-light performance and I box sensitivity between the 50 and the 42 mm? Maybe I could come to an easier decision that way. If there is a big boost in performance then I think I know which one I want...

 

[B-P-UU]

Larger objective lense will always provide a larger exit pupil given the magnification is constant (16x).

With that said, I've had no issues with the x42 viewing game past legal shooting times.

Cant speak to the x50's eye box but the x42's is really comfortable

 

[Falar]

At 16x we're looking at 2.6mm exit pupil vs 3.1mm so .5mm difference.

I've always been a big objective guy. I used to order my USOs with 58mm when everyone else was doing 44. I'm always obsessed with eyebox at max power. I see all the people running 42-44s and making hits though and wonder if it isn't time for me to make a more practical decision instead of a theoretical one.

 

[jwhjwh54]

following

 

[TacticalPlinker]

I ended up calling a third party to get some answers short of buying both and doing it myself. The good guys at Mile High took time to describe both scopes sided by side . And thier description matches all the replies stated. For my application - local PRS style matches - the 50mm is the way to go for me. Thanks for all the info

 

[Falar]

I didn't even know they had any in yet, only noticed eurooptic posting they were in stock.

 

[B-P-UU]

I ended up calling a third party to get some answers short of buying both and doing it myself. The good guys at Mile High took time to describe both scopes sided by side . And thier description matches all the replies stated. For my application - local PRS style matches - the 50mm is the way to go for me. Thanks for all the info

I must have missed your application.. yes for PRS matches, no downside of the one you selected.. I really like both turrets.. how they are laid out with big easy to read numbers as well as numbers at half MIL.
But for match shooting, the tall turret is the way to go.

Report back once you get it.

 

[Falar]

I just ordered one of the new 4-16x50s in Mil-C from Eurooptic. Only place I could find them in stock and Nightforce is always the same price everywhere anyway.

 

[Falar]

Got my 50mm F1 with Mil-C just now. Seems to be just as big as my 3-20 US was. Haven't even got the diopter focused in yet but man, that dot is tiny even on 16x.

 

[CSTactical]

This may help for some people, we have Nightforce 4-16x42 Mil-C and Tremor 3's in stock, the x50's will hopefully be here in the next week or so.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

Got my 50mm F1 with Mil-C just now. Seems to be just as big as my 3-20 US was. Haven't even got the diopter focused in yet but man, that dot is tiny even on 16x.

could you take could you take a picture at lowest power, medium and in highest magnification through the scope?

 

[Falar]

I can give it a shot if the sun will ever return. I swear I'm in coastal Alaska, not the desert of West Texas this week.

 

[CSTactical]

We have both in stock, here's a few pics for comparison

 

[B-P-UU]

Is the x50 stamped "made in USA"?

 

[Falar]

Mine is.

 

[CSTactical]

Is the x50 stamped "made in USA"?

 

[B-P-UU]

Thanks for clarifying. I don't particularly care either way. I just didn't see the obvious made in USA mark on the top of the tube like the x42 has.

 

[Winny94]

So the cynic in me wants to ask if this actually made in the US, or just assembled/tested. Not that it matters on quality/performance, but I always like knowing the parts are sourced/machined in the US.

 

[CSTactical]

So the cynic in me wants to ask if this actually made in the US, or just assembled/tested. Not that it matters on quality/performance, but I always like knowing the parts are sourced/machined in the US.

I'd say call them up and ask, some of their best scopes are made in Japan (7-35, ATACR 1-8 and NX8)

 

[Falar]

What's strange is mine is marked just like that x42 in his picture though the x50 in CSTactical's picture is not.

Not that I care either; the parts all come from Japan anyway and it is either assembled here or there. If there were statistics out there on which point of assembly had less errors I'd want mine to come from that one.

"Made in USA" isn't really a thing in optics unfortunately. Yes, I'm aware of USO (have owned several) and the AMG and am not saying they are bad but they are the rare exception. All the best stuff is either Japanese or German, with the Japanese-origin items currently dominating the market in popularity. Look at how many companies are offering LOW-made scopes today vs 6 years ago.

 

[Winny94]

I'd say call them up and ask, some of their best scopes are made in Japan (7-35, ATACR 1-8 and NX8)

Oh, its not a concern of mine as ill stick to the x42 (I prefer the turret on that model). Im also not disparaging the Japanese scopes (I own/owned several) - I'm just not a fan of playing the semantics game. One could argue that same stamp could be placed on the Razor II as well.

 

[Terry Cross]

@TacticalPlinker
I just ordered two of the 4-16x42mm for L.E.class and demo rifles.

I have mounted a bunch of the 42mm on agency guns and all users are super happy. Now that NF announced a 50mm version, I felt the need to research before ordering. I love the lower turrets of the 42mm and absolutely hate any tall turret but didn't know if there were other features I should consider. I got this reply from someone that knows:

"The new 4-16x50F1 is .6" longer and 3 ounces heavier....all to provide about 40 seconds longer of twilight time.....and it does not have the low profile ZeroHold elevation adjustment like the 42. The smaller objective actually provides a super forgiving parallax range. The 50mm requires more adjustment. On the 42, you can pretty much focus it/remove parallax at anywhere between 100-200 and be parallax free to 7-800 yards."

Taking into account this and personal experience with the track record of a bunch of 42mms, I went that route.


./

 

[rockmyglock]

I'm looking hard at one of these right now myself in Mil-C.

Man, I'm really struggling here. Also it seems Nightforce must be hell on MAP these days as they are the EXACT same price everywhere. Any recommendations?

The 4-16x42 in Mil-C is a personal favorite and is a go-to for a field rifle. I’ve taken it out to 1425yds and been more than pleased with how it performs during the twilight hours.

I reached out direct to vendors and asked for a quote. That and pay by check vs credit card gets you best price.

Recommend Paul at Mile High or Derek at EuroOptic.

 

[CSTactical]

The 4-16x42 in Mil-C is a personal favorite and is a go-to for a field rifle. I’ve taken it out to 1425yds and been more than pleased with how it performs during the twilight hours.

I reached out direct to vendors and asked for a quote. That and pay by check vs credit card gets you best price.

Recommend Paul at Mile High or Derek at EuroOptic.

Reach out to us and let us see what we can do

 

[B-P-UU]

@TacticalPlinker
I just ordered two of the 4-16x42mm for L.E.class and demo rifles.

I have mounted a bunch of the 42mm on agency guns and all users are super happy. Now that NF announced a 50mm version, I felt the need to research before ordering. I love the lower turrets of the 42mm and absolutely hate any tall turret but didn't know if there were other features I should consider. I got this reply from someone that knows:

"The new 4-16x50F1 is .6" longer and 3 ounces heavier....all to provide about 40 seconds longer of twilight time.....and it does not have the low profile ZeroHold elevation adjustment like the 42. The smaller objective actually provides a super forgiving parallax range. The 50mm requires more adjustment. On the 42, you can pretty much focus it/remove parallax at anywhere between 100-200 and be parallax free to 7-800 yards."

Taking into account this and personal experience with the track record of a bunch of 42mms, I went that route.


./

Good feedback. Forgiving parallax on the x42 has been my experience as well. Do you mean 40 minutes of twilight time (not 40 seconds)?

I've got a x50 on order, so looking forward to comparing the two. The x50 is going on a switch barrel and the taller-style turret is easier to setup in that arrangement. I still really like the zero lock style of the x42 however.

 

[Falar]

You guys are really making me regret my x50 purchase already. I mean, it is a great scope but I did really want the low turret instead.

 

[mkollman74]

@TacticalPlinker
I just ordered two of the 4-16x42mm for L.E.class and demo rifles.

I have mounted a bunch of the 42mm on agency guns and all users are super happy. Now that NF announced a 50mm version, I felt the need to research before ordering. I love the lower turrets of the 42mm and absolutely hate any tall turret but didn't know if there were other features I should consider. I got this reply from someone that knows:

"The new 4-16x50F1 is .6" longer and 3 ounces heavier....all to provide about 40 seconds longer of twilight time.....and it does not have the low profile ZeroHold elevation adjustment like the 42. The smaller objective actually provides a super forgiving parallax range. The 50mm requires more adjustment. On the 42, you can pretty much focus it/remove parallax at anywhere between 100-200 and be parallax free to 7-800 yards."

Taking into account this and personal experience with the track record of a bunch of 42mms, I went that route.


./

This makes me happy as I got my x42 with MIL-C yesterday. I'll be using it on AR in 6 Fat Rat for my daughter to hunt with as well as for limited range matches and calling 'yotes. I am happy with what I am seeing so far, and I really prefer the shorter turret.

 

[Terry Cross]

Do you mean 40 minutes of twilight time (not 40 seconds)?
.

That was a copy & paste direct from an email reply I received.

While it could have been a brain fart and the author meant minutes, I'm going to say not.

My personal reason for thinking he didn't mean 40 minutes is because when coming through twilight, available light sheds really quickly.
He may have been simply making a smart ass point that there is a difference on paper but very little in real use.

5 minutes is the difference between P.I.D. and no P.I.D. in fading light so he definitely did not mean 40 minutes.

I know we have shot a lot of the 42s with low light / spotty ambient light (street lights, emergency strobe lights, etc.) and other bad light conditions with pleasing results. My opinion is that the glass on the whole ATACR series is giving them an edge in those conditions regardless of obj. size.

I am totally NOT an optic geek. My expertise is limited to whether the turrets move things the same every time and whether things look pretty with my noggin behind it.


./

 

[Falar]

That was a copy & paste direct from an email reply I received.

While it could have been a brain fart and the author meant minutes, I'm going to say not.

My personal reason for thinking he didn't mean 40 minutes is because when coming through twilight, available light sheds really quickly.
He may have been simply making a smart ass point that there is a difference on paper but very little in real use.

5 minutes is the difference between P.I.D. and no P.I.D. in fading light so he definitely did not mean 40 minutes.

I know we have shot a lot of the 42s with low light / spotty ambient light (street lights, emergency strobe lights, etc.) and other bad light conditions with pleasing results. My opinion is that the glass on the whole ATACR series is giving them an edge in those conditions regardless of obj. size.

I am totally NOT an optic geek. My expertise is limited to whether the turrets move things the same every time and whether things look pretty with my noggin behind it.


./

Well you've convinced me, I'm putting up a WTT ad.

 

[Falar]

So here is my x50 with the "MADE IN USA" in the same place as the x42 in CSTactical's pic.