Trying to decide between a Leica PRS 5-30x56 (PRB) vs Nightforce Atacr 7-35x56 (Mil-xt). The Atacr is really well proven. Although Leica is new to the PRS scope world, they have a very good reputation. Thoughts?
Rifle Scopes Leica PRS 5-30x56 (PRB) vs Nightforce Atacr 7-35x56 (Mil-xt)
- Thread starter jmikell870
- Start date
I watched it a couple of times. He really focused on the reticle more than anything, but does talk a little about the other characteristics. It was pretty helpful.
He really doesn't like the reticle, but I like it for all the reasons he hates it. Although, he has real world experience with it, mine is all based on trolling forums.
Last edited:
Glass is about the same.
Not enough markings on the Parallax on the Leica.
Leica is like $800 cheaper.
I like the reticle on the Leica, so I bought the Leica.
Not enough markings on the Parallax on the Leica.
Leica is like $800 cheaper.
I like the reticle on the Leica, so I bought the Leica.
I like the L-Ballistic reticle a little more and I posted a video on that as well:
Optically and mechanically, both PRS scopes I looked at were very good and for the money really offer a lot.
However, I definitely like the Mil-XT reticle more than Leica's PRB.
That having been said, if you can live with Leica's reticles, the PRS scope is a really good option. Sample size of 2 is not all that much, but both are verey nice.
ILya
Optically and mechanically, both PRS scopes I looked at were very good and for the money really offer a lot.
However, I definitely like the Mil-XT reticle more than Leica's PRB.
That having been said, if you can live with Leica's reticles, the PRS scope is a really good option. Sample size of 2 is not all that much, but both are verey nice.
ILya
Thanks for the information. I'll keep trolling your videos you put out.
Side note. I would be very interested in learning about your evaluation process when you review scopes or other optics. I find myself jumping straight to clicking the turrets then looking through the glass and saying, "that looks clear".
Optically, I know optics have varying atributes of contrast, resolution, and ability to resolve chromatic aberration. But I don't really know how to determine or articulate if is "good", "poor", or "exceptional".
Side note. I would be very interested in learning about your evaluation process when you review scopes or other optics. I find myself jumping straight to clicking the turrets then looking through the glass and saying, "that looks clear".
Optically, I know optics have varying atributes of contrast, resolution, and ability to resolve chromatic aberration. But I don't really know how to determine or articulate if is "good", "poor", or "exceptional".
Honestly, a lot of it is just experience, but I do have an advantage in that for my dayjob I run a small company that makes optical test equipment. I am reasonably up to speed on what to look for and how it is all measured.
ILya
Sad that the Nikon FX1000 reticle has .2 MIL ticks up down left and right but this far more expensive Leica only does it left and right. Why? I’ve done multiple PRS matches and appreciate the fidelity of a .2 MIL in all directions. Allows me to hit movers more easily, for one, and conquer no dial rounds easier.
Only issue with the Nikon’s reticle is the cross hair area is too thick. It’s too thick overall, actually.
All Leica had to do was make a slightly thinner Nikon FX1000 reticle and I’d have this scope.
Only issue with the Nikon’s reticle is the cross hair area is too thick. It’s too thick overall, actually.
All Leica had to do was make a slightly thinner Nikon FX1000 reticle and I’d have this scope.
I used to care about .2 hash marks, but centering between a 0 and .5, and getting .25 is good enough for me.. if I want a .1 mil hold, then I hold slightly above/below the 0 marker etc.. I've never found not having .2mils the limiting factor in any PRS match.
This^. H2CMR has served me well with 0.5 mil elevation hashes. Generally staged that have no dial stages you’re shooting at an IPSC or
Similar target which is like 0.5 mil tall to begin with. There’s really not
Much practical advantage I’ve found with finer than 0.5 mil elevation holds. Windage however the granularity of 0.2 helps with very thin targets like bowling pins.
I shot my buddies CCH reticle. At first I thought, ".25 of a mil is dumb". But, I was really impressed how fast I was holding / correcting for shots with out dialing. I initially was double checking my hold because it seemed so fast. For PRS distances, I don't think a .5 stadia is bad. In many cases, I find I can get shots off a little quicker because I'm not searching and counting the stadia as much. If I miss because of wind, I'm normally adjusting in increments of .2 or greater. I don't waist too much time looking for a .1 correction. At 700 yards, a 1 MOA target is 7.35". A .2 mil correction will bring you back about 5" if you barely missed (less than a tenth). If I miss a second round because of wind, it's normally because I under compensated, thus requiring a greater amount of hold. These are pretty average numbers for PRS. And everyone is different. I think we can all agree that modern reticle selection options are much better than 5 or 10 years ago and will continue to get better...and more diverse.
As I’ve shared in some other threads, I had the same decision to make several months ago. Leica PRS vs. NF ATACR. I chose the Leica and I have been extremely pleased with it. Glass is a bit better than the ATACR’s I’ve played with. I like the PRB reticle quite a bit overall. Tool-less turrets are pretty awesome. The NF ATACR is a great scope for sure, but I just felt like I was getting more bang for a bit lower cost with the Leica. No regrets here, ...in fact I’m about to order 1 or 2 more of the Leica scopes because I’m getting tired of sharing just the one with my wife and kids. 1st world problems right?
Yeah so I get that you may not need .2 MIL in PRS, but you can do .2 and .5 mil tick marks without being cluttered. What gets me is they have .2 MIL left and right and .5 mil up and down. Why the difference? That requires me to remember there's a difference and while it may never catch me, it requires that one little moment of processing in the moment that shouldn't be necessary. Just. Put. The. Same. Mil. In. Each. Direction!
Pretty sure the PRB reticle has .2 mil in all directions, but I almost can't see the tree on it quickly when I was looking through one of these. The different shapes are growing on me though because on my current PRS scope, if I do use the tree (which is so rare it's almost pointless to have it), I have to sort of count my way to where I need to be and that's slow. With these different shapes I suppose I could be like... + sign on the second row left. Quick vs. .3 mil to left -- 1, 2, 3... okay found it now keep my eye on it while I find the target... shoot and have to do it again.
Pretty sure the PRB reticle has .2 mil in all directions, but I almost can't see the tree on it quickly when I was looking through one of these. The different shapes are growing on me though because on my current PRS scope, if I do use the tree (which is so rare it's almost pointless to have it), I have to sort of count my way to where I need to be and that's slow. With these different shapes I suppose I could be like... + sign on the second row left. Quick vs. .3 mil to left -- 1, 2, 3... okay found it now keep my eye on it while I find the target... shoot and have to do it again.
Here is a like-new Leica PRS 5-30 illuminated with the PRB reticle. $2,279.20.
In examining the Leica, everything about it seemed first-class. I thought it was a clever idea to have the little lever that flips out to make it easier to turn the turret .
I suspect you would be happy with either of your choices.
In examining the Leica, everything about it seemed first-class. I thought it was a clever idea to have the little lever that flips out to make it easier to turn the turret .
I suspect you would be happy with either of your choices.
Similar threads
