Rifle Scopes Does the 7-35 ATACR invalidate the 5-25?

[Falar]

I was all set to order a 5-25 w/MIL-C for a 20" .308. I had initially thought I didn't want something that big but after seeing someone else with the same combo decided to go for it, even if the top end was a little more than I needed.

However, it seems that the 7-35 completely invalidates the 5-25. There is virtually ZERO size and weight difference and I see that though the total elevation travel is advertised differently (and I don't need more than 100 MOA anyway) in actual use they are very similar.

Would I ever shoot on 35x? Probably not, but it would nice to have with virtually zero tradeoffs. For spotting holes in paper at longer ranges I wouldn't have to switch to spotting scope and back.

I guess I'm torn because part of me thinks 7-35 on a 20" .308 is completely absurd but when you compare it to the 5-25 it just seems crazy to buy a 5-25 in a world where the 7-35 exists.

 

[Brandon05_88]

Who gives a shit what people think is absurd? I have the 5-25, but I normally stay 15-20x anyway. If a little extra greenbacks isn’t an issue, do the 7-35. You’re already pondering it now, so you may regret the 5-25 in the future.

 

[Covertnoob5]

It’s really a 7-25 vs a 7-35 since the 5-25 tunnels from 5-7 anyway. Optically I also find the 7-35 a little better than the 5-25. The only downfall of the 7-35 is price. If you can afford it there’s no reason not to do it.

 

[flyright]

I shoot both - sometimes at max magnification - and really notice very little difference. Especially doesn't matter when your staying between 10-18 or 20 the majority of the time. The parallax seems a bit less finicky on the 5-25. The 35 is a bit better for spotting bullet holes on paper though. Either will do a great job.

 

[021411]

I purchased my 5-25 Mil-C before the 7-35 was released and don’t regret the purchase. I too RARELY go below 7 and above 20. Yeah it would be nice to always have the extra power on tap but for me it’s not needed. If I were in your shoes just get the 7-35. You’re gonna get the 5-25 and have buyers remorse since you’re already contemplating the 7-35.

 

[roamin]

Very diplomatic thread title.

 

[308pirate]

I guess I'm torn because part of me thinks 7-35 on a 20" .308 is completely absurd

Rifles are tools, not fashion statements. If a 7-35X scope is what makes the tool work for you, who cares what it looks like?

 

[wigwamitus]

I've been shooting the 7-35x T3 all year and love it, but I am thinking of a 5-25x because of the low end. I got the 7-35x to double as a spotter and it works great for that, but for night hunting, behind a clipon, the 7x is too much. The 5x on the bottom would be more hunting friendly but still have enough magnification on the top end to be useful for long distance and dots, in the day. I think I want one of each.

And yes, with the 7-35x I'm usually between 10x-20x for shooting, but can crank up higher for observing.

 

[Falar]

I purchased my 5-25 Mil-C before the 7-35 was released and don’t regret the purchase. I too RARELY go below 7 and above 20. Yeah it would be nice to always have the extra power on tap but for me it’s not needed. If I were in your shoes just get the 7-35. You’re gonna get the 5-25 and have buyers remorse since you’re already contemplating the 7-35.

I never would have even thought about it but then I saw a post where someone said "there are no drawbacks" to the 7-35. I thought, that isn't possible and went and looked at the specs.

Length weight virtually the same.
Eye relief and FOV are largely the same, though I haven't seen where both are at identical ranges like 13-20 since that isn't listed
elevation travel on the 7-35 is better than advertised
Some even feel the 7-35 is a bit clearer, like the poster above

 

[NICETRY]

I have two 7-35’s. I will admit when Nightforce first announced the scope and marketed it towards PRS style shooting I thought Why? 35x on the top end, I thought that’s a waste. Oh how I was wrong. Once I had a chance to actually compare it to my 5-25 ATACR I had to have it. I find parallax and the eye box more forgiving on the 7-35. And if I’m shooting prone at a target rack or TYL/KYL I’ll crank that zoom up. If you can spring for the 7-35 I’d do it.

 

[m6z]

There seems to always be a few of the 5-25 models for sale and quite frequently they mention that they're selling to move up to the 7-35 model.

When I'm scope shopping next year it'll be at the top of my list.

I am curious if we will see any new tactical optics at the next SHOT show with 35x or more on the top end.

 

[Primus]

Until NF comes out with a quality reticle it's a moot point. G2, XR gen 2/3, EBR-2c, SKMR3, AMR, ect all laugh at NF reticles. The funny thing is they used to have some decent ones in the velocity series back in the day if it would match up with your loads. Ahead of the times and didn't even realize it.

 

[Primus]

Funny thing is, the one decent reticle they have is available only in the 1-8 ATACR

 

[Falar]

So you like "trees". Cool, I don't so the MIL-C will work for me.

 

[Hostile_SS]

Rifles are tools, not fashion statements. If a 7-35X scope is what makes the tool work for you, who cares what it looks like?

I think he is saying, that a 7x35 on a 308 is overkill. not looks.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Until NF comes out with a quality reticle it's a moot point. G2, XR gen 2/3, EBR-2c, SKMR3, AMR, ect all laugh at NF reticles. The funny thing is they used to have some decent ones in the velocity series back in the day if it would match up with your loads. Ahead of the times and didn't even realize it.

Gonna say the h59 isn’t bad. Yea it sucks there’s an upcharge for it, but it’s not like it doesn’t work. Too cluttered for some yes, but I can make do with the h59 for what the rest of the 7-35 gives me.
For those that don’t want a tree, I think the mil-c is one of the best out regardless of brand.

 

[TRH1962]

I have the beast and love it but now I wish I had the 7x35 as my eyesight isn't what it used to be. I have it on my Rugar PR 6.5 CM.

 

[Primus]

Gonna say the h59 isn’t bad. Yea it sucks there’s an upcharge for it, but it’s not like it doesn’t work. Too cluttered for some yes, but I can make do with the h59 for what the rest of the 7-35 gives me.
For those that don’t want a tree, I think the mil-c is one of the best out regardless of brand.

Horus reticles look like a Jackson Pollock painting. Choas and clutter everywhere. What better way to show off your super duper low dispersion glass than fill it with 80% useless grids. A simple tree is perfection and what most field shooters want. Dialing is for plebs.

 

[Covertnoob5]

While I can see an argument for it being too busy for some it certainly isn’t “useless” it’s mils. If you can do mils you do the h59. I hold everything so it works.

 

[Falar]

Don't take the bait, check the Leupold thread. Dude is a total tard/troll.

 

[Primus]

Funny how virtually any scope offered with the h58/59 and a quality Xmas tree reticle, the vast majority of shooters don't want the Horus. It's way too much clutter and obscures your picture especially if you use your high mag scope as a spotter like alot of people do. Yeah it "works" but so does a plane mil dot reticle. It's also hader to spot your splashes at distance with a bunch of shit overlayed your target.

Falar is just mad he loses debates and cries troll and throws insults. He doesn't even try to refute because he can't. As far as Leupold is concerned, time will tell. Ignoring past performance is what poor decision makers do.

 

[Squat]

So you like "trees". Cool, I don't so the MIL-C will work for me.

Plus if Shannon makes it it has to be the bomb

 

[Covertnoob5]

I’m not arguing that the h59 is better than other tree reticles. I would much prefer an mr4, ebr7b, etc. to the h59 but I want a tree and I want a 7-35 so I choose the h59 and hopefully one day NF will come out with their own tree. I’m simply saying the h59 isn’t useless.

 

[Squat]

I’m not arguing that the h59 is better than other tree reticles. I would much prefer an mr4, ebr7b, etc. to the h59 but I want a tree and I want a 7-35 so I choose the h59 and hopefully one day NF will come out with their own tree. I’m simply saying the h59 isn’t useless.

Dude trust me when I say there are plenty of guys hitting two legged critters with the Horus stuff and they love it. Trouble is you can’t go posting comments if you are a knife and triangle guy, so idiots that hate a man get to troll and spew their stupidity. A Xmas tree is easy if you use it for what it is. If I say hold .5 right and 7.5 you go down to the tiny dot at .5 and 7.5 and you think that’s busy and can’t shoot then you suck. Period. 2/3rds of these people rarely shoot past 100 yards and spend all their range time here. Driving the real shooters off and demanding creds of guys who can’t provide them or care enough to do so.

 

[Squat]

Funny how virtually any scope offered with the h58/59 and a quality Xmas tree reticle, the vast majority of shooters don't want the Horus. It's way too much clutter and obscures your picture especially if you use your high mag scope as a spotter like alot of people do. Yeah it "works" but so does a plane mil dot reticle. It's also hader to spot your splashes at distance with a bunch of shit overlayed your target.

Falar is just mad he loses debates and cries troll and throws insults. He doesn't even try to refute because he can't. As far as Leupold is concerned, time will tell. Ignoring past performance is what poor decision makers do.

Damn how $#&ing dumb are the marines then ordering 700+ H32 spotting scopes. Seriously you need to be where you belong in the field helping our snipers get rounds on target .......??????

 

[Primus]

Damn how $#&ing dumb are the marines then ordering 700+ H32 spotting scopes. Seriously you need to be where you belong in the field helping our snipers get rounds on target .......??????

The same Marines who stuck with an outdated m40 in 7.62 coupled with a 3-12x? While everyone else moved on a decade earlier to a real caliber and capable optic? Those ones?

 

[Squat]

Right the marines with minimal budgeting that spend it on what they like and need. They also aren’t using that rifle much but you are stuck in what the inter webs says so that’s not a surprise.

 

[Squat]

And can you tell me more about the real caliber seeing you are so in with the CAG boys. I really hope you don’t show your stupidity by saying 6.5

 

[Primus]

Yeah I always heard the same thing from Marines about their army hand me downs.....ironically when deployed with them they'll had all of the latest greatest body armor, weapons, optics , vechicles, radios,ext. Much nicer than the 20 year old m16, no optic and Iba/ ta50 garbage we deployed with. Much nicer crew served( 50s and mk19s) and newer m249s as well.

The Marines spend more per marine than the army spends per soldier. Even their support guys deployed with acogs and the latest gear.

That old line stopped working around 20 years ago.

 

[Squat]

Are you actually contradicting yourself?

Dude you probably think these snipers you drool over engage 1100+ daily. You’d be sad to know most don’t and they use gas

 

[Primus]

Plus we're not talking about CAG or batt or the squeels who have infinate fires and support. We're not even talking about 2 way ranges. For the vast majority of hunters and long range shooters, they want a simple, easy to use, non cluttered reticle. Let's get the thread back on the rails. If NF came out with a good reticle I would buy two 7-35's yesterday.

 

[patriot07]

The #1 reason the 7-35 doesn't invalidate the 5-25 is cost. It's nearly $1k more new and used, which is not irrelevant.

IIRC, the 5-25 has a bit more elevation adjustment, so that's a factor as well for the ELR crowd (although I've heard the 7-35 has more than advertised).

Otherwise, if they were the same price, I think most folks would take the 7-35.

 

[Falar]

They're only 500 different new.

I can't imagine someone that could afford a 3000 dollar scope but couldn't afford a 3500 dollar scope. Now, there might be a point in time where someone couldn't swing the extra 500 RIGHT NOW but it is a matter of time, not "can't".

 

[roamin]

Me thinks the OP is seeking validation.

I bought a 7-35 and I'm loving it so far. I don't own the 5-25 but the 5-25 is an NF ATACR saying that anything "invalidates" this scope is a mouthful and the choice in wording is a dick move.

 

[patriot07]

They're only 500 different new.

I can't imagine someone that could afford a 3000 dollar scope but couldn't afford a 3500 dollar scope. Now, there might be a point in time where someone couldn't swing the extra 500 RIGHT NOW but it is a matter of time, not "can't".

I pretty much only look at used prices. 7-35 is $3k, 5-25 is $1900-$2300 depending on reticle. That's a huge difference.

 

[B-P-UU]

I'm a big fan of my 7-35. Love the MIL-C and 35x is really usable in normal shooting conditions. Went through the same decision as you and glad I picked the x35. Size and weight are identical, just comes down to budget. I think the x35 handles parallax a little better as well (less adjustment needed over a given yardage range)

Think of it this way, a x25 scope is going to be at its optical limits at x25 in terms of eye box, etc., where as the x35 is in more of a "sweet spot" at x25.

 

[B-P-UU]

I pretty much only look at used prices. 7-35 is $3k, 5-25 is $1900-$2300 depending on reticle. That's a huge difference.

I've never seen an F1 for $1900.. SFP, yes, but not FFP.

I do agree the x35's tend to keep their value a bit better

 

[patriot07]

I've never seen an F1 for $1900.. SFP, yes, but not FFP.

I do agree the x35's tend to keep their value a bit better

I've seen the SFP down at $1600.

It was one of the less desirable reticles for the one I saw at $1900. Can't remember now.

You're right that there isn't a $1k price difference assuming identical reticles. That's probably overstated. $750-ish

 

[Ravenyzf-r6]

I liked my 7-35 but it tunnels just like the 5-25. If I remember correctly 7-8.5 tunneled. I used higher mag for punching paper at 1-200 but beyond that I dialed it back.