Rifle Scopes ATACR vs S&B PMII 5-25

#101
Bought an ATACR in MOAR yesterday. I have zero need for FFP, not a competitor or Tactical shooter. And I have a rangefinder. So that point is moot.

This was a "Buy Once...Cry Once" sort of purchase for my soon to be completed 6.5x47 Lapua. I have a 5.5-22X56 on my .308 Rem 700 and love it, but wanted a little bit more for the new rifle.

SportOptics in LA had the ATACR's in stock. Nice folks to deal with too.

FN in MT
 
#102
The ATACR with the extra elevation it offers puts it in a different ELR category for me when comparing it to a S&B PMII. Glass quality and reliability are excellent in both. Distance is the only really noticeable comparable.

FFP v SFP at ELR is relevant on wanting magnification variable power ability with ease of use ( say to cope with mirage ). FFP has the reticle hash marks showing the same click value at any power - SFP has them altering on lower powers. This is either a problem if you are not comfortable with checking the power band and doing some maths - or an asset if you want to go so far out you want to use the reticle to extend distance on top of the internal adjustment and are happy with dialing down to half the ranging power ( i.e. 12.5x ) to double the reticle value.

In mirage I would like the ability to vary to any power ( as opposed to halfing the power band on a SFP scope to keep the hash marks value simple ) - but not at the expense of having to dial down to minimum power so that I could use all of the reticle due to needing this because the internal adjustment on the S&B was not enough and being forced to try and hit a target in the smallest image available in the scope.

Knowing the bullet drop figures for the rifle you want the scope for and doing some distance calculations on how far out you can go with the S&B will determine whether the ATACR is going to be a better choice.
 
Last edited:
#103
+1 for hoping NF comes out with a FFP ATACR or an equivalent. I demand FFP in my scopes and would not spend more for a BEAST than I can pick a S&B 5-25x56 up for.

Matter of fact I already picked up a S&B 5-25 but I eventually will be in the market for another and if NF has a high magnification, high quality FFP in the magnification range I would definitely want to try it out.
 
#104
They will. It will be called a BEAST. Adding ffp to the ATACR would add about $400, putting it at about $2700. Why not pony up the little bit of extra dough for the high speed turrets and digital illumination?
I don't think nightforce would want to destroy their market for the beast, not in the first year or two of release. So my bet is if a ffp ATACR ever exists it'll be in 2015 or later.
PCR/XLR/TAC338 http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111453_255_zps1b498f0d.jpg http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111325_951_zps290ebdd0.jpg
 
#105
The odds of seeing an FFP ATACR within 2 years are slim to none... at least that is the word.

The BEAST is it, and since it is not dropping commercially for a few more months, figure, 2 years from 2014 at best for a FFP version if at all.

Nightforce really enjoys a lot of sales in their SFP lines, from F Class to Benchrest, so they have no reason to speed a FFP scope along. They have consistently done well with the SFP scopes.

Maybe they will surprise us sooner, but I find that doubtful, so I would not continue to dream about it as you will be disappointed.
 
#106
Love my ATACR so much I got it a tat!
 

Attachments

  • 20130928_145504-1-1_resized.jpg
    20130928_145504-1-1_resized.jpg
    78.1 KB · Views: 30
#109
bodywerks said:
They will. It will be called a BEAST. Adding ffp to the ATACR would add about $400, putting it at about $2700. Why not pony up the little bit of extra dough for the high speed turrets and digital illumination?
Click to expand...

$400 I would gladly pay to get an FFP ATACR. Paying an additional $600 for high-speed turrets and digital illumination is not something I consider necessary or a bargain as the normal turrets and illum get the job done already.

This is based off the list prices I see of the ATACR being $2328 and the BEAST being $3298
 
#110
Lowlight said:
The odds of seeing an FFP ATACR within 2 years are slim to none... at least that is the word.

The BEAST is it, and since it is not dropping commercially for a few more months, figure, 2 years from 2014 at best for a FFP version if at all.

Nightforce really enjoys a lot of sales in their SFP lines, from F Class to Benchrest, so they have no reason to speed a FFP scope along. They have consistently done well with the SFP scopes.

Maybe they will surprise us sooner, but I find that doubtful, so I would not continue to dream about it as you will be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Nightforce makes bullet proof optics, probably more so than any other manufacturer. I'm sure they have scopes go down, i've just never seen one. Some friends and I were talking at Scorehigh TRC in June about which optic would you choose if you had to go to war? We all agreed 5-22 NXS.

I just don't understand the time it takes to get this scope to market. They must have one R&D guy, and one Engineer, and they don't work on the same days. We have been awaiting a higher magnification FFP scope for what seems like 6 years. I expect it to hit shelves after SHOT next year - maybe June.
 
#111
superde said:
Nightforce makes bullet proof optics, probably more so than any other manufacturer. I'm sure they have scopes go down, i've just never seen one. Some friends and I were talking at Scorehigh TRC in June about which optic would you choose if you had to go to war? We all agreed 5-22 NXS.

I just don't understand the time it takes to get this scope to market. They must have one R&D guy, and one Engineer, and they don't work on the same days. We have been awaiting a higher magnification FFP scope for what seems like 6 years. I expect it to hit shelves after SHOT next year - maybe June.
Click to expand...

The reason is that NightForce absolutely will not release a product until they know they have it right, the first time. As much as I would also like to see a FFP ATACR come to market, it has already been said by the NightForce rep (00bullit) that an ATACR in FFP will not be introduced because the BEAST is exactly that with improved glass, illumination and elevation.

In my opinion it would make no sense (from a profitability standpoint) after having spent untold thousands of dollars on R&D for the BEAST, to release a FFP ATACR and all but destroy sales of the BEAST. Why? Because very few shooters would be interested in ponying up the extra scratch for digital illumination and the fancy new elevation turret when the standard HS/ZS turrets and illumination work just fine for 95% of shooters in the field. Therefore the BEAST would sit on the shelf and for the most part collect dust.

Think of it as the ATACR being the 'new and improved' NXS and the BEAST is the 'new and improved' NightForce F1 because that's really how it is.
 
#113
Atacr

Capt Academy said:
I love my ATACR, it a great scope, but FFP would have been the bomb!
Click to expand...

I have the Nightforce ATACR mil/mil on my Armalite AR-30a1 .338LM mount with a Badger one piece ring set with 20 moa.
I was a Leupold guy until I bought this scope, I want to be another and put it on my .308 win just to use same scope and
be trained the same. This scope has a total of 38.6 mils elevation, with the 40 moa (base/rings) my 300 yd zero is 8.5 mils;
so I can get out there. To be fair I have only use one S&B scope a long time ago but this scope is the best I have used.

JJK
 
#115
KillShot said:
The reason is that NightForce absolutely will not release a product until they know they have it right, the first time. As much as I would also like to see a FFP ATACR come to market, it has already been said by the NightForce rep (00bullit) that an ATACR in FFP will not be introduced because the BEAST is exactly that with improved glass, illumination and elevation.

In my opinion it would make no sense (from a profitability standpoint) after having spent untold thousands of dollars on R&D for the BEAST, to release a FFP ATACR and all but destroy sales of the BEAST. Why? Because very few shooters would be interested in ponying up the extra scratch for digital illumination and the fancy new elevation turret when the standard HS/ZS turrets and illumination work just fine for 95% of shooters in the field. Therefore the BEAST would sit on the shelf and for the most part collect dust.

Think of it as the ATACR being the 'new and improved' NXS and the BEAST is the 'new and improved' NightForce F1 because that's really how it is.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that a ATACR FFP scope will work for 95% of shooters, that I would say nightforce obviously didn't do it's market research and ended up introducing the wrong product.
 
#116
I don't know if NF made a mistake with the number of SFP scopes and the ATACR being SFP. What is the current breakdown of SFP to FFP scopes overall and not just in the small tactical community that now strictly goes FFP? I am sure there was an extensive survey and NF determined the market price points and numbers sold based on this and decided going forward with both scopes. I shoot a lot, both for work and for fun, and have both SFP and FFP scopes and even for my job I still use SFP as do most of the police snipers in my geographical area. When I go to the range I see SFP scopes around 60-70% of the time and most of the FFP scopes are used by shooters who have zero understanding of what they really have or how to use it. More then once I have stopped to explain how FFP and mils work to a shooter on the line so when you look at the SFP/FFP sales we have to avoid the myopic view of just the tactical/mil shooters served on this forum. Ask the average safe queen builder who a good scope manufacture is and you will get Leupold or Night Force, because its what they hear and see. Ask about mils or MOA and most know MOA but even those that know the difference between them don't understand how mils work. So looking at the big market I see why NF will not release the ATACR in FFP and I'm good with it. The ATACR is so good IMHO that I run one on my primary call out rig and don't notice any handicap at all even though I find FFP/mil a better overall system to work with.

Sully
 
#117
jbell said:
I thought the BEAST and the ATACR had the same glass (optical quality). Is this correct or not, no speculation please if you don't know for sure then keep your thoughts to yourself?
Click to expand...

jbell, unless I misunderstood the meaning of this...I took it to mean the glass is the same, prescriptions similar, but the BEAST excels.

00bullitt said:
The only similarity of the prescription in the BEAST and the ATACR is that they utilize the latest ED Glass Technology. That is the only way in which they are the same.
Click to expand...


batex said:
If you are saying that a ATACR FFP scope will work for 95% of shooters, that I would say nightforce obviously didn't do it's market research and ended up introducing the wrong product.
Click to expand...

That is my opinion, not that of NightForce, because I don't see the added value of having digital illumination or the added feature of the elevation turret but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I'm not an 'operator' or shoot comps.
 
Last edited:
#118
KillShot said:
The reason is that NightForce absolutely will not release a product until they know they have it right, the first time. As much as I would also like to see a FFP ATACR come to market, it has already been said by the NightForce rep (00bullit) that an ATACR in FFP will not be introduced because the BEAST is exactly that with improved glass, illumination and elevation.

In my opinion it would make no sense (from a profitability standpoint) after having spent untold thousands of dollars on R&D for the BEAST, to release a FFP ATACR and all but destroy sales of the BEAST. Why? Because very few shooters would be interested in ponying up the extra scratch for digital illumination and the fancy new elevation turret when the standard HS/ZS turrets and illumination work just fine for 95% of shooters in the field. Therefore the BEAST would sit on the shelf and for the most part collect dust.

Think of it as the ATACR being the 'new and improved' NXS and the BEAST is the 'new and improved' NightForce F1 because that's really how it is.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true and it is unfortunate. I think NF missed a great opportunity by making an all-out scope that squeaks in a couple hundred dollars underneath the reining champion S&B 5-25. If NF had made the BEAST a few hundred dollars cheaper ($2999 instead of $3298) then a lot of people would take them up on it. Instead, I bet a lot of people will just spend the extra $200 and get a S&B.
 
#119
jbell said:
I thought the BEAST and the ATACR had the same glass (optical quality). Is this correct or not, no speculation please if you don't know for sure then keep your thoughts to yourself?
Click to expand...

The BEAST and ATACR are the exact same quality and clarity of glass. No speculation there. You are paying
For the ffp, digital illumination, and high speed turrets in the beast - not higher quality glass.
PCR/XLR/TAC338 http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111453_255_zps1b498f0d.jpg http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111325_951_zps290ebdd0.jpg
 
#120
#125
DropinLead said:
Am I the only person with an ATAC that F***ing hates it? Frankly I preferred my Millet. Nn to S&B for me. I got one in the box if anyone wants one. Cheap.
Click to expand...

That's a good advertisement, cuz you are the only one that hates it, for apparently no reason at all (maybe you prefer cloudy glass?).
You'll make someone a proud new owner!

PCR/XLR/TAC338 http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111453_255_zps1b498f0d.jpg http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111325_951_zps290ebdd0.jpg
 
#126
Yeah I see your point, and your right. It works well actually. I shoot at low power and 200-300 yds and above 12 power I fight with parallax is all. Not the scope, per say it is me and my shooting style. Pick a scope that fits the needs, I overbought basically. The glass is dynamite. Going back to lower power with a scope designed to be shot at lower power is all. It is why they make so many scopes, there is no best, only best for your need given budget.

You right not the scope it is me. Easier to blame the equipment.
 
#129
I read pretty much all of the posts and see a trend, that the optics and clarity between the Nightforce ATACR and the Schmidt & Bender are relatively the same. Has anyone really compared the two equally, despite the contrasts of FFP/SFP, digital illumination and turrets? I mean, has anyone looked through the two in ALL conditions? I can say that you have to look through the glass in non-optimal conditions, right? Maybe after sunset or in pitch blackness? How about looking through them in the rain or heavy mirage?

So, has anyone really owned both and really shot when they almost needed a flashlight to pick up their brass? I would like to hear some more opinions from people with THIS kind of first hand experience, not just guesses. Because in my opinion, this is when the comparison between optical quality really matters.
 
#130
JayCarver said:
I have the ATACR and S&B PMII and after a lot of comparison I will give the nod to S&B but not by much, I'm loving the ATACR.
Click to expand...

Jay, have you compared the two at distance (1K and more)? I ask because that is when I see the most difference in optical quality. Short range most decent glass looks good but when you get out there all that crap in the air is what separates the men from the boys...
 
#131
If I were only wanting to use Mil/Mil due to familiarity and consistency - and wanted a scope for ELR - getting the ATACR in Mil/Mil and SFP would not unduly concern me.

Most shooting could be done at either 25x or 12.5x with the maths being very simple on the reticle at these two powers. Stability wise you are going to need to be in a solid position for the shots so 25x should work fine for most of your shooting depending upon the heat and mirage at your location.

Dialing down to 12.5x which is marked on the power band and doubling the reticle value is not going to be a hard mental task when you cannot use 25x.

Compare that to most shooters being unfamiliar with the Unertyl system of dialing up in 0.2 mils and then flicking the switch to add 0.1 if an odd number is needed on your come ups and I bet there will be more than a few FFP shooters who would find the ATACR a bit more easy to get on with.

Once you laser the target and PDA the come ups required - a SFP scope using true Mils at 25x to assist in walking a round in or double the Mil value to do the same at 12.5x with the benefit of standard elevation and windage knobs would be my preference compared to the thought process of "first hit" 0.5 Mil high and 0.5mil left on the reticle needing "three clicks down on 0.2 and one click up on 0.1 for elevation - but the windage needing five clicks right".

For guys who may have "one BEAST" and "two F1 scopes" or a mix of S&B and F1 moving between rifles where the dial in is second nature and then wholly different for the BEAST would have me thinking very hard about using an ATACR in Mil/Mil for my ELR rifle.

Either that or spending an awful lot of money for a complete change to BEAST scopes.
 
#132
^^This is what I have been thinking since seeing the pics/specs on the beast^^.

The biggest draw to NF for me was the NXS line. The glass might be less than a Premier or S&B, but for daytime range shooting and any hunting application I would ever find myself in the 5.5-22 excels. And does it for well under $2k. The 4x magnification adjustment makes for EZ use of my reticles at full, half and minimum power.

For me, the ATACR creates more problems than it solves. I lose one more power setting where my reticle subtends. I lose another $500 per rifle putting glass on it. The ATACR should have been the beast-a FFP beefed up NXS. And as far as the beast, that seems like I would have to relearn dialing every time I picked up the rifle that had it, because I certainly could not afford to pop one of those on top of every rifle I use. Not to mention the center of gravity would be a little tall on the old 22 trainer. I love NF, but like so many other things it seems like they took something that worked so well in so many ways and "improved" it to the point I may not like it anymore.
 
#133
jbell said:
Jay, have you compared the two at distance (1K and more)? I ask because that is when I see the most difference in optical quality. Short range most decent glass looks good but when you get out there all that crap in the air is what separates the men from the boys...
Click to expand...

Good point, when I did the side by side comparison it was at about 650yds, the conditions where not bad but not great. I have used both the scopes at 1200yds but not back to back. Next time I have them out together I will have to do some better comparisons at long range.
 
#134
JayCarver said:
Good point, when I did the side by side comparison it was at about 650yds, the conditions where not bad but not great. I have used both the scopes at 1200yds but not back to back. Next time I have them out together I will have to do some better comparisons at long range.
Click to expand...

And try to do the comparisons after sunset or just before dark, if you can. Let me know what your observations are.
 
#136
Cobracutter said:
$2300+ for a SFP scope?

Ill pass.
Click to expand...

If clarity at great distances and low light conditions aren't important to you, nor 120+ MOA of elevation, then i can see why you'd pass.
You obviously haven't looked through an ATACR yet or glass quality comes second to features for you. You are paying for the glass in the ATACR. Top quality glass doesn't come cheap. The ATACR is s&b, march, premier type glass in a $1k+ lower price tag.

PCR/XLR/TAC338 http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111453_255_zps1b498f0d.jpg http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111325_951_zps290ebdd0.jpg
 
#138
bodywerks said:
If clarity at great distances and low light conditions aren't important to you, nor 120+ MOA of elevation, then i can see why you'd pass.
You obviously haven't looked through an ATACR yet or glass quality comes second to features for you. You are paying for the glass in the ATACR. Top quality glass doesn't come cheap. The ATACR is s&b, march, premier type glass in a $1k+ lower price tag.

PCR/XLR/TAC338 http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111453_255_zps1b498f0d.jpg http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111325_951_zps290ebdd0.jpg
Click to expand...

Understood.

The IOR's I have owned have looked just as good to the S&B's, USO, and Khales I have looked through. Maybe Lasik fucked me up and I can't notice the subtle differences, but I think IOR had the best glass of the lot.

Granted the NF has awsome internals and reliability, I just don't see the point in a SFP tactical scope at this point in time. If this was FFP, and sold in the $2500-2700 range, it would dominate the high end market.
For a range gun where SFP is fine or VERY long range shit where you don't want a thick reticile , it sounds like its a good option. But then again, so is Sightron at 1/3 of the cost or IOR at 60%.

It looks like a great optic, just don't understand the hype from the tactical crowd when its missing one of the KEY features of a tactical/practical optic.
 
#139
Anyone who goes into my IOR Looks good discussion clearly has not clue what the purpose of a scope is...

Why not just strap a telescope without any adjustments to your rifle.

Reliability, Repeatability, Tracking, Adjustments, all that matters more than looks.

IORs have a terrible track record, some can say otherwise, or say they have Improved over the years, but the road is littered with the fallen.

NF doesn't suffer that problem.

The "Tactical Crowd" you mean like the SEALs and Crane who have been using SFP Nightforce scopes in Combat for how long ? It's just a training issue, if you learn to use your optics correctly you can easily work the landscape with a SFP and in the context of ELR it's a solid choice as there are very few benefits when using a FFP, some but very few.
 
#140
ATACR vs PMII

The ATACR is no doubt a very nice scope. I was excited when the ATACR was released. Immediately, I purchased a couple of them. I've used most of the optics available. S&B 5-25x56 is my preferred choice and I have more of them than I probably should. I also use Premier, March, and USO which are a great fit for the rifles that wear them. I tried several NXS's quite some time ago and I understand why they are so popular. However, I sold them as I found optics that I prefer a little more. Back to the ATACR...while I noticed a definite improvement over the NXS, it is my opinion that the glass is not quite up to the level of Schmidt and some of the others. However, others may disagree with me on that issue. After testing the ATACR's against my other scopes, I sold them.

Once again, NF makes excellent scopes that are extremely durable and reliable. However, there are a few others that are a better fit for me. YMMV.
 
#141
I never mistake ownership with competence or know how (or know what) the world is littered with owners who didn't know a thing about what own.

Ouch_ferrari_crash.jpg


I bet this guys says his Porsche was better than his Ferrari because he never crashed his other expensive sports car. Means to buy doesn't mean much if you all you do is stare through it and move to the next one. The internet is full of Bay Window reviewers who like to comment on glass and move from one scope to the next never having mounted any of them.

Guys all day will say, Premier is great, but ignore the parallax binding issue, or the locking mechanism troubles.

How much they love the glass on their March, never mentioning the tight eye box, or twice thick reticles.

One of my favorites is, how great the customer service was on their $2k+ optic, why is it so great, cause everyone uses it.

I shoot this stuff on a weekly basis, been that way for more than 10 years... never once missed a shot because of the Glass in one my Nightforce Scopes. Never.
 
#142
Very good point Frank, and I know this has been beat to death in many other threads. I do completely agree with you that NF optical quality has always been completely serviceable and I have never complained about it (especially at the original price point). But when I was able to afford to make the switch to S&B & Hensoldt I did based on the optical quality improvement alone. Now mind you I have owned many other scopes during this time but only the Benders and Hensoldts have stayed. I have never been as satisfied with a scope as I have with the PMII and Hensoldts and yes I too have had issues with the Bender, but that is part of it everything can brake. Also during this time I have been waiting for the day that NF will come out with a higher optical quality scope. I think the wait is over and that is why I am selling my Hensoldt.

There are very few scopes that can give you what NF has given us over the years in terms of reliability, repeatability, and customer service. That is the main reason I am wanting to make the switch back. NF as a company has seemed to have a very specific focus on quality, quality in the products they make, quality in the people they have working for them, and quality in the support the provide after the sell. IMO they have built a legacy on this but are not satisfied with leaning on what they have done, it appears they want to build upon it when other companies seem to be leaning on theirs. This is just my opinion based on the last 2 years of changes that have been made by some of the companies that I use for my current optics and I feel its time to act on that...
 
#143
I'm certainly not in the same league as many of You here. But I can surely APPRECIATE quality glass.
I've hunted for many years and especially out here in the West quality glass can make or break a hunt. Hence my Leupold and Zeiss rifle scopes.
Years back on a cops salary...I had a friendly shop that allowed me to make payments on my Swaro spotter and Leica 10x42 binos. I had a hell of a night at the craps table at Reno once so on the way home FINALLY bought myself the 8x30 Swarovski binos I had wanted for years.

My ATACR came in this afternoon and it appears to be a quality piece of glass. I was outside at dusk playing with it next to my 5.5-22x56 NF. I was watching a pair of rams (Mtn sheep) a mile away on Eagle Mtn with the setting sun barely illuminating them. The ATACR was maybe 15% or 20% clearer and brighter. To me a noticeable difference.

I can rationalize the $2100 for this scope, I could never rationalize a S&B. I'm not an "Operator" ....simply a hobbyist LR shooter.

FN in MT
 
#144
And the Chromatic Aberrations of the Hensoldt don't bother you at all, the purple & yellow flaring is A-Ok even though it is as every bit as present as the Bushnell HDMR. You know when everyone complained about the color flaring and return them in droves.

I even posted through the scope picks and the Hensoldt wasn't better and it didn't have the purple fringing like the Hensoldt. How do your numbers line up on the turrets, because I have 4 Hensoldts not to mention the 2 Spotters, 60 & 45, and the turret numbers don't all line up perfect - same complaint of the SSHD.

Hmm, interesting, and so discerning yet.... Or could it be spending more money helps you (and others) over look these things. Stuff that people spending $1500 screamed about, guys spending twice that call-em a keeper.
 
#146
Lowlight said:
And the Chromatic Aberrations of the Hensoldt don't bother you at all, the purple & yellow flaring is A-Ok even though it is as every bit as present as the Bushnell HDMR. You know when everyone complained about the color flaring and return them in droves.

I even posted through the scope picks and the Hensoldt wasn't better and it didn't have the purple fringing like the Hensoldt. How do your numbers line up on the turrets, because I have 4 Hensoldts not to mention the 2 Spotters, 60 & 45, and the turret numbers don't all line up perfect - same complaint of the SSHD.

Hmm, interesting, and so discerning yet.... Or could it be spending more money helps you (and others) over look these things. Stuff that people spending $1500 screamed about, guys spending twice that call-em a keeper.
Click to expand...

Funny you asked. I actually have no CA that I can detect in any lighting conditions, and yes I have looked for it because of the issues they have been known for. I have shot the HDMR and did notice it, actually I was shooting the HDMR to see how I liked it for a rimfire scope. After shooting it I scrapped the idea of the Bushnells totally. I put my Hensoldt almost on the same optical quality level as my Benders, the only difference comes in with a very slight resolution edge going to the PMII. My turrets line up dead nuts at any point in the travel (well at least so close that I have never noticed them being off, and I am picky).

I am not sure, but maybe I just got lucky and the small sample rate of Hensoldts that I have owned/used none have had the common issues. I am not saying they don't exist but rather the Hensoldt and the PMII scopes both have been very reliable for me as far as the mechanical aspects of the scope. Then you add the higher optical quality the extra I have to pay for them is worth it. You seem to very quick to assume that because "I" spend more money on something it justifies any short coming in that item. Quite a statement for someone who doesn't know me, but then again because you run this site and read untold number of post on the internet made by people who may or may not know what they are talking about you may think that you can tell. Maybe you can... But I can tell you the Kahles I traded you was a pretty big let down as far as optical quality. I believe you were also one of many who gave me a hard time for not even shooting the scope. If you recall I said that if a scope will not pass my optical quality check then it doesn't get the chance to prove that it is mechanically sound to me. Because with out both of those things I don't care how much money I spend or end up losing on a item, I just don't want it.

It seems like in this sport there are a lot of band wagons. I have been on a few of them from time to time but it isn't because everyone else is jumping on its because it benefits me and my shooting style. I am also not afraid to go against the grain when it works for me.
 
#147
Some interesting points you make their Frank.

I would be pretty interested to learn how to test scopes for chromatic issues - never have understood that side of things.

Pics of this shown through the lens would be great if you have a link.

One of the things which would be good to hear from people who frequently post in the scope section is "what you want to do with your scope" and why you made the choice you did over others.

I bought my ATACR over a S&B PMII (i.e. the original comparison in this thread ) for ELR. There is at least 25 MOA or 7 mils of extra elevation internally and a lot more in the reticle if required. I say "a lot more" because the SFP design gives you that option if you drop down to half the reticle value at 12.5x.

For my uses this puts the ATACR way ahead of any scope being offered by any other maker.

The issues you raise are interesting to me though because there are things which I feel I have taken for granted from NF ... and perhaps I shouldn't. Reliability and repeatability being the biggest.

I have had problems with other scope manufacturers - but - so far - never with NF. I chose the ATACR for what it can do ... but I also chose it because I have great faith ( albeit subconsciously at the time ) that it will do this reliably and repeatedly.

This comes from owning them since 2004 and probably owing 8 or so of which 5 I still own and all of them have been good.

Nothing dampens your confidence in a scope manufacturer more than to have owned scopes from them which didn't work.

IOR and March fall into this category for me.

USO did work but they were too difficult to operate. The objective lens focus couldn't be reached when behind the rifle looking through the scope. It was too long in the body. Newer models are more in the "normal" size range ... but those old models could do things newer scopes still cannot match today on elevation and power bands.

S&B have never let me down ... but I gather you have had problems?
 
Last edited:
#148
I want to see a breakdown of these, "optical tests" everyone is doing. Is it a case of holding it in their hand staring at something saying, "gee this looks better to me" cause that ain't a test that is an uneducated opinion, a fancy eye test. Like noted by Finn Accuracy in the other thread there is a lot more too it than that.

The point of a scope is to shoot it, not stare at buildings and trees across the street from your backyard. Funny bird watchers try this everyday with spotters and none of them can agree, what makes you think walking out your back door looking at the bushes or the neighbors roof gives you special insight ?

I have also noted on several occasions, (ask anyone that attended a SH match) where I pointed out issues with their scopes they never saw. amazing how much we can convince ourselves when it comes to stuff we buy. One match at RO I pointed out at least 4 Premiers where the parallax was bound, not working and the owners never realized it or at least we're happy to overlook it.

Guys who stand up and admit they never mounted, and certainly never shot it, claiming superior decision making based off a look through the living room window really make me laugh. Like out loud. Reliability be damned, I can't see what's on tv at my neighbors house. Lol

So all you professional testers, what's your method? Downloading a single B&W block from the USAF chart? Using another type of color test target from Edmunds ? What's the process so others can learn ?

reticle choice must not factor in either, I will note when shooting competition, I have not gone over 20x usually stick closer to 18x but I have gone below 10x cause no mention of use ever factors in. But in that rare occasion.
 
#149
Lowlight said:
I want to see a breakdown of these, "optical tests" everyone is doing. Is it a case of holding it in their hand staring at something saying, "gee this looks better to me" cause that ain't a test that is an uneducated opinion, a fancy eye test. Like noted by Finn Accuracy in the other thread there is a lot more too it than that.

The point of a scope is to shoot it, not stare at buildings and trees across the street from your backyard. Funny bird watchers try this everyday with spotters and none of them can agree, what makes you think walking out your back door looking at the bushes or the neighbors roof gives you special insight ?

I have also noted on several occasions, (ask anyone that attended a SH match) where I pointed out issues with their scopes they never saw. amazing how much we can convince ourselves when it comes to stuff we buy. One match at RO I pointed out at least 4 Premiers where the parallax was bound, not working and the owners never realized it or at least we're happy to overlook it.

Guys who stand up and admit they never mounted, and certainly never shot it, claiming superior decision making based off a look through the living room window really make me laugh. Like out loud. Reliability be damned, I can't see what's on tv at my neighbors house. Lol

So all you professional testers, what's your method? Downloading a single B&W block from the USAF chart? Using another type of color test target from Edmunds ? What's the process so others can learn ?
Click to expand...

HERE HERE Lowlight!!! I totally agree with your statement and I also challenge people to really quantify how they arrived at their opinions regarding one scope over another. Scopes are just tools and each scope is designed for each process. To each their own, but do not tell me that one tool is better than another without justification and evidence.

Thanks Lowlight for this post. Someone finally said it!
 
#150
I've said before and will say again, I'd have an ATACR if it were FFP or even an NXS F1 in 5.5-22x. Improved glass quality is nice, but unnecessary. I don't like the idea that I have to dial to this power or that power for the reticle subtensions to be correct. If I have 1:30 to shoot an array of targets at varying range, I don't want to take the time to make sure that my magnification is lined up when I'm looking for the targets. The clock is enough stress for me. Otherwise, its a great scope.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Nightforce ATACR 4-16x50 -- Second Focal Plane -- Glass & eyebox as good as F1 ??
Replies
3
Views
570
Bungi
B
L
NF Atacr FFP 4-16x42 v SFP 4-16x50 Mil-R
Replies
7
Views
741
sjbryan65
sjbryan65
N
Rifle Scopes Nightforce 4-20 ATACR vs 5-25 ATACR
Replies
20
Views
1K
nick338
N
D
Long Range Gas Gun Optics
Replies
30
Views
1K
nick338
N
ModestMarksman
ATACR vs PM2 for SRSM2
Replies
10
Views
543
CSTactical
CSTactical
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts