Rifle Scopes MK5 or ATACR

[loveha]

Rifle will be a bolt action chambered in 300WSM.
Primary use will be hunting but some target shooting out to 400 yards.
Budget is roughly $2,000

I've been looking at the following two scopes.
Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44mm with illuminated TMR reticle.
Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42mm with the Mil-C reticle.

The NF is going to cost roughly $300 more. Is the glass substantially better in the NF to warrant the slight cost difference?

Are there any other scopes in this price range with a similar reticle that I should Iook at or you would recommend?

Thanks!

 

[K80/6.5]

Nightforce will be heavier but come standard with illumination. I have the mk5 5-25 and plan on getting a 3.6-18 on my hunting rifle after my vudoo which I’m still saving for.

 

[hafejd30]

I own the 4-16 ATACR and it is a awesome scope. Love the low profile zero hold elevation turret and capped windage on mine. I have a MOA version. There’s one I think in px for $1900 that I saw with the mil c. No affiliation with seller. I paid $1800 I believe for mine. In the px

Crystal clear and built like a tank. I run mine on my AI. Not a big Leupold fan anymore. Got let down by a $500 rangefinder and Mark 4 in the past. So I don’t even look at the Leupy anymore

 

[loveha]

The weight im not to concerned about. I'm not walking very far with it.

I have Leopold, NF, and Athlon scopes. But nothing of the quality I'm looking to purchase. I would normally just pick the reticle I like most, but I like them both.
I wish I could get them both and send back the one I don't like unmounted, but I'm not aware of anybody that would do that.

 

[HMM]

I own the 4-16 ATACR and it is a awesome scope. Love the low profile zero hold elevation turret and capped windage on mine. I have a MOA version. There’s one I think in px for $1900 that I saw with the mil c. No affiliation with seller. I paid $1800 I believe for mine. In the px

Crystal clear and built like a tank. I run mine on my AI. Not a big Leupold fan anymore. Got let down by a $500 rangefinder and Mark 4 in the past. So I don’t even look at the Leupy anymore

I've got a 4-16 on my AR10 and I love it. It is a little heavy but worth it to me.

 

[b6graham]

ATACR every day

 

[rockmyglock]

ATACR every day

This.

 

[theLBC]

i run a mark 5HD on my scar and it survived. ask any scar hater and they will tell you that means it must be tactical AF.
seriously though, it has worked perfectly for me and the low light is outstanding (although i am not hunting and use an H59 reticle).

 

[bllistc]

I'm still a relative novice to the long range game but I have a mk5 7-35 and I've looked through the ATACR 5-25. The leupold is brighter but other than that I couldn't see a difference between the two. At least not several hundred dollars or more worth. I got the non-illuminated mk5 which it why it was significantly less than the ATACR.

 

[patriot07]

ATACR, and it's not particularly close, especially for your intended uses. JMHO

 

[STI_1911_Guy]

I like the leupold for hunting. I have two of the MK5's and one ATACR and they are all great. Leupold really did much better with these new optics.

 

[1911hombre]

I've had both and like 'em both but the ATACR wins; the 4-16x42 ATACR is arguably the "best kept secret" of the ATACR lineup.

 

[Poorboyr]

The Nightforce eyebox is extremely tight for my eyes. The Leupold is very easy to get behind. I would definitely take the Leupold over the Nightforce.

 

[M8541Reaper]

I have the ATACR 4-16 and love it. Never used the MK5 line but a lot of people like them. Personally I like the Mil-C more than the TMR (used to have a TMR back when I was running a leupold). Either way, you can’t go wrong.

...plus with a NF you can beat the animal to death if you run out of ammo.

 

[Crews]

I wish I could tell you I’ve tried the MK5, because it sounds like a really nice scope. I do have the 4-16x42 ATACR, and it’s a marvelous scope. My use is the same as yours pretty much; mostly hunting with the occasional target shooting out to 800 yards. Love the compact design and low profile locking elevation turret. MilC reticle is clean and useable. Dependable and the track record is above reproach. The only thing that absolutely bugs the shit outta me is the entire ocular housing rotating for magnification changes. I’m always having to fuck with the caps. Good thing they rotate too.

 

[loveha]

Looks like overwhelming support for an ATACR.

Guessing there is nothing else in its power range with similar reticle for around $2k at the same type of quality?

 

[M8541Reaper]

Honestly man you’ll be set either way. I’m a die hard NF fan but I’d try a MK5 based on what I’ve been told by people I trust, if I were looking for a new optic. Regardless you can’t go wrong and I highly doubt you’d regret either. It really comes down to what reticle you prefer, even though you said you like both.

 

[elmuzzlebreak]

I just went thought this same thing but with 7-35 MK5 vs ATACR. Came down to reticle because I wanted illumination and I preferred the MILXT over the TMR and Tremor 3. But if Leupold had an illuminated CCH or H59 I would have gone with the MK5. From what I've seen NFs hold more resale value and they are proven scopes. Not saying the MK5s aren't proven either but they haven't been around as long as the ATACR line. My best suggestion is first pick your absolute favorite reticle. If it's a hunting scope then maybe illumination is more important.

End of the day if you put both in front of me and told me I had to pick one I would go with the NF.

 

[arrow179]

Buy one of each and look at them side by side then return the one you like least!

 

[Runnineh]

Buy one of each and look at them side by side then return the one you like least!

Or buy both, then build another rifle since you'll more than likely like both

 

[loveha]

If I bought both to keep, one would have to go on the CC. I already plan on building a strict light weight hunting rifle in 6.5 PRC. Snagged a Proof Carbon for $600 in the PX, SO, I will most likely get a MK5 because of the weight saving compared to the NF. But that is a project for this winter.

 

[STI_1911_Guy]

Both optics are good. If you are shooting out to 400yds you will NOT notice a difference or your success will not be hindered by either. The nightforce is 113g (1/4 pound) heavier and that isint even that much but I will say that one thing that will hinder you on a hunting rifle is extra weight where the benefit is minimal. Just my opinion.

 

[Simonsza1]

Mark 5

 

[jarredsc]

Mark 5hd is great

 

[lennyo3034]

Illuminated TMR is an excellent reticle for hunting. It can be used at lower power without illumination. The NF reticles are thinner. For a hunting I would prefer something thicker.

Have looked through both but not at same time so I can't compare the two.

 

[Mk32784]

The 3.6-18x MK5 CAs a fair bit on the sample I have seen, my ATACR 4-16 doesn't at all. The ATACR imho has better glass, more forgiving parallax, and is priced higher for these features. Would go with it any day of the week if weight and money weren't an object, but the Mk5 is a solid scope and tracks just fine so I don't see any major downfalls either way.