Rifle Scopes NF 5-25 and 7-35 glass

[mercracing]

I’m in the market for a different scope for my AXMC. Currently there is a gen 2 Razor on there. I’ve been thinking about another Razor with different reticle, a NF 5-25, or a 7-35. A couple people I’ve talked to have said the 7-35 has better glass even though it’s advertised as the same glass. Can those that have looked through both chime in?
Thanks

 

[flyright]

I own both and use them side by side often. I'd read that before too so, I started looking for it. Both are excellent at all ranges and I've never noticed any difference in the glass - if one exists - bright to edge of night lighting conditions. Just MHO.

 

[wade2big]

If you are satisfied with the Razor then save your money and buy a second. I finally got to use a nightforce 7-35 that a friend just bought. Guess what? It is just another scope. Nothing more and nothing less. Im sure the same thing can be said about the TT and the ZCO scopes as well.

As far as I am concerned, the Razor Gen II is as good as anything more expensive and I can’t figure out what else is gained “stepping up”. I am sure many will disagree. I guess I would disagree with my statement as well If I were trying to justify to myself the extra $2000 i just spent but hey its only money and its a renewable resource.

 

[phlegm]

I've noticed a little more color in the 5-25.

I think the 7-35 has a little more depth of field.

I haven't noticed any significant difference in contrast.

Both have excellent resolution.

 

[M8541Reaper]

Just ordered a NF 5-25 F1 ATACR (upgrading from an NXS 3.5-15 F1) so I'm excited to see how it looks. I'd imagine any observed differences between the 5-25 and 7-35 would vary from shooter to shooter, as they are the same specs in term of size and materials.

 

[just browsing]

I’ll just start by saying that I am NOT an optical engineer or even anything close to one, just speaking from personal experience. Someone like Ilya is going to be MUCH more qualified to speak on this than me or the vast majority of us for that matter.

The glass in the the 5-25 and 7-35 is likely the same, however that does not mean both scopes are going to present exactly the same.

You are talking about different optical chassis (7-35 is longer than the 5-25), different mag ranges (5x vs 7x), and presumably different erector designs (different amounts of elevation adjustment). It’s why both scopes have different FOVs, parallax/focus at different ranges, eye relief, etc.

So when someone says “the 7-35 has better glass,” it’s likely because it presents better to that individual looking through it, not because the glass is objectively different or better.

 

[wade2big]

I’ll just start by saying that I am NOT an optical engineer or even anything close to one, just speaking from personal experience. Someone like Ilya is going to be MUCH more qualified to speak on this than me or the vast majority of us for that matter.

The glass in the the 5-25 and 7-35 is likely the same, however that does not mean both scopes are going to present exactly the same.

You are talking about different optical chassis (7-35 is longer than the 5-25), different mag ranges (5x vs 7x), and presumably different erector designs (different amounts of elevation adjustment). It’s why both scopes have different FOVs, parallax/focus at different ranges, eye relief, etc.

So when someone says “the 7-35 has better glass,” it’s likely because it presents better to that individual looking through it, not because the glass is objectively different or better.

I get what you are saying and you are probably correct, but if it takes an optical engineer (trained eye) to tell you the difference then does the difference really matter. NOPE.

 

[just browsing]

I get what you are saying and you are probably correct, but if it takes an optical engineer (trained eye) to tell you the difference then does the difference really matter. NOPE.

Not so much saying an optical engineer is needed to tell you the difference. The majority of guys that look through both side by side will tell you “the 7-35 is better.”

My point is that while the physical components may not change much or at all between the two, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[bourbonbent]

I own neither right now. I’m still deciding on what I’m buying. The following is an anecdote, from a short afternoon at Mile High.

Let me follow that preface with a caveat: I have exceptional eyesight. Everything else I’ve got is fucked up and working like a Fiero on its 9th owner, but my eyes are still 20/10.

With the 7-35 ATACR in Mil-C, I could clearly resolve the individual bulbs in a traffic light’s tree at 800 yards. Not the green, yellow, and red lenses. I’m referring to the bulbs inside the lenses. This was at 35x, between 35-55°F (what am I a weather gauge). Some mirage, but not enough to make it annoying.

I did not look through anything else next to it, didn’t have time.

Optics are a funny thing. You should decide whether you’re after pure resolving power, or image fidelity, which is how I refer to the scopes ability to transmit what your eye would see through the lenses and give you a nice, warm image with colors and depth of field, a nice image to look at that is true to life. Or, a nice even mix like the photography world calls image quality. Not really apples to apples, and I’m sure someone will correct some of my terminology as out of date, but the concepts are the same.

Nightforce, even the 7-35, still looks like I’m looking through a Nightforce. I consider that a good thing. The NXS was a shit hot scope when it was one of a small handful of quality options. It’s still a quality option, the glass just isn’t quite as nice to look through. The ATACR resolves insanely well, but it does NOT have the warm, friendly image of a legacy S&B PMII. It is like taking the same image, and editing one to favor color saturation and contrast, then editing the other to maximize every single fucking bit of detail, every pixel as good as it can be. If you’re a “pixel peeper”, the 7-35 will blow your skirt up.

More perspective:

In 2007, an S&B was as good as you were going to get. USO was at the top of their game (in my opinion), had excellent CS and ridiculously good optics in a stupidly tough scope. NF basically just had the NXS, a hell for stout scope that lacked on the glass end enough to irritate. Leupold’s flagship was still the MK4, which was and still is a very good scope, with horribly mushy turrets.

Shooters today are inundated with a massive amount of optics that meet or exceed those baselines, and it becomes important to self assess. Do you have medical issues that cause issues? I do, I’ve had something like 4 TBI’s and optics really fuck with my eyes and brain if they’re not really good. CA is intolerable to me. Coatings that boost saturation and contrast in the rendered images can also get to me, if it’s too much.

How good are your eyes? Take ego out of the equation entirely, go to the eye doctor and tell them you’re thinking about getting a pilots license, and you need to know exactly how good your eyes are. If you’re sitting with vision corrected to 20/20 or have ocular occlusions or whatever they’re calling them, etc, you likely won’t be able to tell a difference. If you’re uncorrected sitting at 20/20, you may see some. Not everyone’s eyes render color the same in each eye, let alone from person to person. Get an honest appraisal of your eyesight and not what your ego says it is. If you truly do have exceptional eyesight, you should probably already know that, and you’ll be able to see a difference in a lot of things.

There’s also visual acuity to think about. Most places can’t even test lower than 20/15, the VA here can’t rest lower than a cursory 20/10. Two people with statistically identical eyesight numbers will not see things the same way. Our eyes are weird like that. Some see things instantly, others have to look. Example being the desert sheep or mule deer/coues deer hunter, some can spot an ear through the spotter at 3 miles because it flicked a fly off. Others can be looking right at an entire unobstructed 36 point mega buck at 500 and never see it.

Some people can see 22 caliber bullet holes on white paper at 100 yards. With the right light, I can still see them, but not like I could when I was young. Some people have a very hard time seeing those same holes through binoculars, even with similar eyesight. The importance of self assessment is that you determine what YOUR needs are. If your eyes are garbage, you probably need every advantage you can get to make up for it. If your eyes are stellar and you have no neurological issues to worry about, then you can likely take your pick based on feature set and ergonomics alone, even shitty glass to get good prices and mechanically excellent scopes on more rifles.

I personally have the problem of good eyes, and bad brain. It makes the optical part of the equation the most important for me, and that is down to how your eyes and brain see and render an image through the optical system, in this case the scope. If your eyes get tired or your head starts to ache looking through a scope, make a note of it and come back to it in a half hour or after your eyes have relaxed. It may be that the diopter and parallax are all fucky and you’re just having a hard time with that, and a quick adjustment fixes it. Maybe it doesn’t, and that’s okay. Ocular fatigue can cause all kinds of fun problems. Scopes are tools, you wouldn’t get emotionally invested in a MIG welder or a belt grinder, you’d just want the best option you can afford that’s going to do what you need it to do. Treat a scope, rifle, all of this shit like the tools they are, and things get more simple.

That’s a TL;DR way of saying that optical image preferences are so personal, and there are so many options, it is worth driving somewhere wity every scope that tightens your trousers on the shelf, go outside with all of them, and look through them. Whichever one makes you go, “fuck, that’s nice”, is probably the one for you, or at least worth making a note of. Look at them all. Optics in general should not create eye fatigue or give you migraines (allegedly, in a perfect world). In my experience, everything not alpha grade Swarovski, or Zeiss, gives me problems. It makes it real fun shooting through a Vortex.

I’m gonna rustle some jimmies right now, so if you’re easily triggered, just hit that ignore button or scroll right on by.

Every Kahles scope I’ve looked through had CA. I don’t care if you can see it or not, I can. Vortex, even the Gen 2 Razor and AMG, I can see optical imperfections and CA, it’s not the quality people make it out to be. I don’t care who agrees or disagrees. It’s a good scope, I wanted to like it and don’t even care about the weight, but it’s not in the same league as the ATACR, or even the Kahles. I really, really wanted to get a Kahles, the feature set, reticles, and build quality are impressive to me in every way, but 10 minutes behind one and I feel like I have an ice pick in my brain.

All that to say, I have time behind a BEAST, ATACR, NXS, S&B PMII (3-12, 4-16, 5-25), USO legacy models, Vortex, Leupold MK4’s, Kahles, and the 7-35 ATACR resolves so well that I couldn’t find a *reasonable* complaint. I could still see a bit of image degradation, but I have seen that in every scope I’ve ever looked through, every piece of camera gear to include Hasselblad medium format cameras and pro body Nikon DSLR’s, Swarovski EL’s, etc. It’s just not possible to duplicate what the human eye can see. I dare anybody to be stupid enough to argue that there’s a scope that can translate any image with absolute true to life image fidelity.

If anyone makes a scope that will outperform a 7-35 inside its price bracket, I’d like to see it. Pepsi challenge, I’ll provide the whiskey and the venue.

That said, I’m probably sticking a 4-16x42 in Mil-C on my 308, and a TT525P on my 338NM. Still need to look through a TT to determine whether that’s where my money is going, if it doesn’t blow the 7-35 out of the water, and I mean “I’m calling the cops, this has to be illegal” kinda good, I’m sticking the 7-35 on the 338.

 

[just browsing]

Feel like I just read a dictionary for fun.

Good thoughts and advice, if a little lengthy.

 

[wade2big]

@bourbonbent
That was a long post. I had to read it in pieces like a book. LOL.

I guess I am the minority but I like a good picture through my scope but I don't sit there and analyze it. I either look through and say yes its clear or no its not. I don't resolve anything. I don't look for CA and really wouldn't know what it is anyhow. IF I were spending a lot of time behind the glass birdwatching or something then it would be different I guess. I look through the scope to hit my target and thats the only reason. If I can do that then I guess Im good LOL.

 

[lash]

For all those that say there is no difference between medium to high end scopes, “because they all look the same to me.”, spend some time using each of these scopes at ELR distances and you’ll see the differences. I won’t try to convince you and don’t care to. You’ll know, if and when you ever have the need.

If all you ever shoot is PRS with the occasional stage at 1200 yards on 2 MOA targets, then you’ll never really need to know. I still do that with my old Bushy HDMR now and then and it works fine.

At longer distances or smaller targets at distance, I’ll take a S&B or NF 7-35 every time. The difference is real.

 

[bourbonbent]

@bourbonbent
That was a long post. I had to read it in pieces like a book. LOL.

I guess I am the minority but I like a good picture through my scope but I don't sit there and analyze it. I either look through and say yes its clear or no its not. I don't resolve anything. I don't look for CA and really wouldn't know what it is anyhow. IF I were spending a lot of time behind the glass birdwatching or something then it would be different I guess. I look through the scope to hit my target and thats the only reason. If I can do that then I guess Im good LOL.

I’m 100% with you, in years past I mocked people that talked like I just did in that post. My eyes were so good it was all irrelevant, and I didn’t have the neuro issues to deal with.

Now, I don’t look for it, I just feel my head start to ache and shit is like there’s a flashlight in the image stabbing my eyes with the CA if it’s there. I actually stopped shooting LR for awhile because of it, I had to go be poor somewhere else LOL.

The new generations of optics have me back to it, I looked through the K624i and thought, “damn, were it not for those aberrational tinges making my brain feel like boiling congealed milk, this’d be fuckin awesome!” Didn’t stop me from making hits or anything, it just really bothers my eyes/brain on a subconscious level.

 

[wade2big]

For all those that say there is no difference between medium to high end scopes, “because they all look the same to me.”, spend some time using each of these scopes at ELR distances and you’ll see the differences. I won’t try to convince you and don’t care to. You’ll know, if and when you ever have the need.

If all you ever shoot is PRS with the occasional stage at 1200 yards on 2 MOA targets, then you’ll never really need to know. I still do that with my old Bushy HDMR now and then and it works fine.

At longer distances or smaller targets at distance, I’ll take a S&B or NF 7-35 every time. The difference is real.

Want you are saying is probably true and I wouldn't doubt it. It probably makes since to guys really stretching it out to pay the money to have the best. Shooting 1500 yards at a 10" target probably does take the best gear, a great shooter with lots of skill and lots of luck as the odds are against any man.

Some guys buy the high end scopes to shoot 100 yards. They don't need them but heck I don't need a lot of the things I have gun related and not so who am I to judge. LOL

 

[5RWill]

I’m 100% with you, in years past I mocked people that talked like I just did in that post. My eyes were so good it was all irrelevant, and I didn’t have the neuro issues to deal with.

Now, I don’t look for it, I just feel my head start to ache and shit is like there’s a flashlight in the image stabbing my eyes with the CA if it’s there. I actually stopped shooting LR for awhile because of it, I had to go be poor somewhere else LOL.

The new generations of optics have me back to it, I looked through the K624i and thought, “damn, were it not for those aberrational tinges making my brain feel like boiling congealed milk, this’d be fuckin awesome!” Didn’t stop me from making hits or anything, it just really bothers my eyes/brain on a subconscious level.

I'm with you there. CA bothers me to no end. Doesn't cause headaches or anything but it's like a blemish on a new car or something that can't be corrected. It just shouldn't exist past a certain price point IMHO. The k525i has fixed that issue for all intensive purposes but it has come at a cost of what arguably made the K624i so great. I want to see the new NX8s and the couple ATACRs i've been behind i liked a lot, wasn't until recently NF had reticles worth a damn IMHO. Now they're back on the map. I'd like to try a 5-25 with the Mil-XT.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

To attempt to answer the OP, I have both the 5-25 and the 7-35. So this answer is not based on anything like “trying to justify buying......blah, blah”
I have already spent the money, and am absolutely ok with it.
The 7-35 is AMAZING. To do a test, I set both of them up at 15X, then 20X, then 25X. The comparison was very close, but I felt like the 7-35 was “cleaner”. More “pop” if you will.
Now, the 5-25 is fantastic, fabulous, all those words we use to describe top end glass. I too have looked through most of the top tier scopes. I like Kahles quite a bit, but they don’t deal with CA very well. It appears to me like everything has a blue tint around the edges. I have owned 2 S&B scopes, and still own the 3-20 PMII. They are great scopes, and I have nothing negative to say about S&B. I just prefer NF now.
So, I believe my opinion is as unbiased as any opinions can be. That is that NF ATACRs are incredible, and that the 7-35 is just a half a step up, maybe a quarter step up from the 5-25.

 

[Nik H]

I had a Schmidt and Bender 5-25 on my AI AT. A NF 7-35 with Mil C reticle sits on it now and I can honestly say that I couldn't be happier. It is excellent. I did a comparison against my buddy's NF 5-25 ATACR and I found the glass pretty damn close. The 5-25 had a slightly different color balance but it was slight.

I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either but I will say that the extra magnification is handy when you need it and can use it.

 

[Tony1320]

How do you guys find the eye box on the 7-35? How does it compare to a Tangent Theta 525 or Gen2 Razor?

 

[Nik H]

How do you guys find the eye box on the 7-35? How does it compare to a Tangent Theta 525 or Gen2 Razor?

I went to a class last fall and got to compare my 7-35 to one of the instructor's TT. I didn't notice much difference in eye box. I would say that the TT was more forgiving and not as sensitive as the NF. However, we are splitting hairs at best. The one facet of the TT that was world class is the turret feel and ergonomics. They are awesome turrets BUT I think the NF turrets have incredibly clear marking...better than anything else I have ever used.

 

[bourbonbent]

How do you guys find the eye box on the 7-35? How does it compare to a Tangent Theta 525 or Gen2 Razor?

Haven’t been behind a TT, but sticking it on a shooting bag on a block wall/sign and stooping to look through it gave me no issues. I found it to be very forgiving.

I remember it being a little easier to get behind and have no shadows or weirdness than a Gen 2 Razor, but my memory is slippery, so don’t take that for anything other than an unreliable anecdote.

I’d stick it on a hunting rifle if that tells you anything.

 

[hk dave]

OP, you’re splitting hairs. I’ve had both side by side extensively, the 7-35 is just a touch better optically but you’d have to really try and see a difference.

 

[M8541Reaper]

Going from an NXS to an ATACR is going to be like jumping in a Mercedes after driving a dump truck

Hahaha nice. My NXS F1 w/ H58 has served me well since 2013 so I cant complain. Just time to upgrade and treat myself haha.

 

[longshot2000]

To attempt to answer the OP, I have both the 5-25 and the 7-35. So this answer is not based on anything like “trying to justify buying......blah, blah”
I have already spent the money, and am absolutely ok with it.
The 7-35 is AMAZING. To do a test, I set both of them up at 15X, then 20X, then 25X. The comparison was very close, but I felt like the 7-35 was “cleaner”. More “pop” if you will.
Now, the 5-25 is fantastic, fabulous, all those words we use to describe top end glass. I too have looked through most of the top tier scopes. I like Kahles quite a bit, but they don’t deal with CA very well. It appears to me like everything has a blue tint around the edges. I have owned 2 S&B scopes, and still own the 3-20 PMII. They are great scopes, and I have nothing negative to say about S&B. I just prefer NF now.
So, I believe my opinion is as unbiased as any opinions can be. That is that NF ATACRs are incredible, and that the 7-35 is just a half a step up, maybe a quarter step up from the 5-25.

I think that is a very accurate summary. I was a naysayer on the 35x for a long time, since it is hard to get a second shot at 35x, but the more I have worked with the Mil-R, Mil-C and Mil-XT on the 7-35x, it just "pops" as a world class scope.

 

[mercracing]

I’ve been talked into the 7-35. Now to find a deal on one... and a Spuhr...

 

[bourbonbent]

I’ve been talked into the 7-35. Now to find a deal on one... and a Spuhr...

I haven’t talked to anyone who’s had a bad thing to say about the 7-35. I was impressed with every aspect of it.

The Spuhr mount really is a beautifully designed and machined product. I use them whenever possible, and can’t say enough about them. I have one for an Aimpoint T2, and a 4001, and will add more.

I’ve used Badger Ordnance mounts and rings for years and have zero complaints, the Spuhr is just in a different class, no better or worse, just a lot more convenient. I have both and use both, but Spuhr is where all future mounting solutions will be purchased for my use, unless something comes out that blows them away, and that’d be something to see.

You should be thrilled with your decision(s), I’d certainly be as giddy as a hipster in a combo farmers market/“vintage” store next to a micro brewery no ones heard of and a bespoke wool lingerie boutique lol.

 

[koshkin]

Between 7-35x and 5-25x ATACR the 7-35x has a touch better resolution with similar contrast. There is some sample variation, so depending on which two scopes you end up with the difference can be very little or easily noticeable, but 7-35x is better.

I suspect that the eyepiece and the erector are the same between the two, but the objective lens is clearly different and it appears to be very well optimized.

I saw a question somewhere up there on how it compared to Tangent Theta and Razor Gen 2. Optically, Tangent Theta is a better scope, but once you get into these price ranges, differences are not large. Most of the difference with Tangent Theta is due to how it handles color and microcontrast. There is a very pulpable depth to TT image which partially comes from very generous depth of field and partially through how we perceive microcontrast and small tonal changes. Doesn't quite have that to the same degree as TT, but if you are shooting plates it does not matter too much. Once you spend more time with the scope and use to find things in the image, TT edges ahead.

Razor Gen 2 is very competent, but not quite as good optically as the 7-35 ATACR. It is very close to the 5-25 ATACR and edges it out at mid-low magnifications. Where ATACR has an edge over the Gen 2 Razor is in retaining image quality as you get cloes to the edge of the turret adjustment. Most scopes have some drop off there, but it is more pronounced with the Razor. That is one of the compromises you make. ATACR tunnels at low magnification, but it is easier to maintain image quality at the edge of adjustment if you allow for tunneling. Razor does not tunnel, but makes a compromise in other ways.

If I were shopping for a scope, if money is no object, just get a TT and be done with it. It is still the best (I am gearing up for another High End Tactical test, so we'll see if my opinion changes).
If you have the cash and need extra magnification, 7-35x ATACR is a really nice option.
If you are not made of money, Razor Gen 2 or Delta Stryker in the $1700-$2000 range are where I think the sweetspot of really world class performance for the money is.

ATACR 5-25x is a very nice scope, but it is sort of a red headed step child in the family now that the 7-35x model is available. If I do not need the extra mag, I'd just get the Razor. If I need 35x, get the ATACR.

ILya

 

[generalzip]

I gave my 7-35 to a buddy that had a 5-25 and also owns schmidts, TT etc. He may post here later. General impression was there was no discernible difference between the 2 in regards to optical clarity and resolution ("glass"). The 5-25 has a bit better eye box which may make it a better PRS scope. The 7-35 can see more slightly more detail at distance when the weather is cool with no mirage because it obv goes to a higher power. Overall it's based on use. PRS we felt went to the 5-25 for eyebox reasons. ELR would take the 735 for the extra power.

I also own 5-25 schmidts and the 7-35 NF. My general impression is that on the whole the Schmidt is a bit more well-rounded scope. It's easier to get behind. That's about the best way I can explain it. The eyebox is huge, good FOV, and the image is crystal clear edge to edge. The NF is a bit less forgiving in terms of parallax/depth of field but still excellent. The 35x on the NF is great for shooting groups but for 8/12 months of the year pretty useless in Texas due to mirage. I could see it much more useful in the northern states. If I were to buy again after using both the 5-25 and 7-35 NF I'd likely let the money decide. The deals I'm seeing now I'd pay up to 2250 for the 5-25 and 2750 for a 7-35 used. Based on my use I'd probably go with the 5-25, but I'm keeping my 7-35 in case I build a ELR gun in the future. That said, I'd probably take another schmidt 5-25 at 2250 vs a NF. Only thing I like more about the NF is the turret spacing.

 

[Johnson184]

I gave my 7-35 to a buddy that had a 5-25 and also owns schmidts, TT etc. He may post here later. General impression was there was no discernible difference between the 2 in regards to optical clarity and resolution ("glass"). The 5-25 has a bit better eye box which may make it a better PRS scope. The 7-35 can see more slightly more detail at distance when the weather is cool with no mirage because it obv goes to a higher power. Overall it's based on use. PRS we felt went to the 5-25 for eyebox reasons. ELR would take the 735 for the extra power.

I also own 5-25 schmidts and the 7-35 NF. My general impression is that on the whole the Schmidt is a bit more well-rounded scope. It's easier to get behind. That's about the best way I can explain it. The eyebox is huge, good FOV, and the image is crystal clear edge to edge. The NF is a bit less forgiving in terms of parallax/depth of field but still excellent. The 35x on the NF is great for shooting groups but for 8/12 months of the year pretty useless in Texas due to mirage. I could see it much more useful in the northern states. If I were to buy again after using both the 5-25 and 7-35 NF I'd likely let the money decide. The deals I'm seeing now I'd pay up to 2250 for the 5-25 and 2750 for a 7-35 used. Based on my use I'd probably go with the 5-25, but I'm keeping my 7-35 in case I build a ELR gun in the future. That said, I'd probably take another schmidt 5-25 at 2250 vs a NF. Only thing I like more about the NF is the turret spacing.

Where are you seeing the NF 5-25 for 2250? Is that used? I only see those prices used for models with older reticles.
Out of curiosity... what reticles do you prefer for the S&B 5-25 for PRS?

 

[generalzip]

Where are you seeing the NF 5-25 for 2250? Is that used? I only see those prices used for models with older reticles.
Out of curiosity... what reticles do you prefer for the S&B 5-25 for PRS?

Yes used prices. If you have patience and jump fast you’ll be able to find one around 2300 used. The h2cmr is my favorite Schmidt reticle.

 

[swage2712]

I own both. If I could sell the 5-25 and not take a big hit I would and use the money to get another 7-35.

 

[mercracing]

I found a good deal on a 7-35 today. Got that and called Mike at Mile High for a Spuhr mount.

 

[lash]

Good snag in the PX! I saw that.

 

[blbennett1288]

I am going to pick up a 5-25 ATACR to compare to my TT. They ATACR is going on the AT. TT will go on the AX. I just couldn’t justify having two TT’s.

 

[Copper818]

I am going to pick up a 5-25 ATACR to compare to my TT. They ATACR is going on the AT. TT will go on the AX. I just couldn’t justify having two TT’s.

updates on this comparison? I’m currently looking at a ATACR 5-25 F1

 

[918v]

I owned 2 5-25’s and a shooting buddy has 2 7-35’s. My problem with my scopes was this I was unable to get a sharp image without parallax. I played with the ocular and parallax knob until my eyes said no more. Couldn’t get them adjusted. Sent one back to NF who returned it saying nothing wrong.

At the same time I had no problem adjusting the 7-35’s to my eyes. Nor any of my other scopes. The glass is nice on both. My 5-25 could resolve the power cable on a construction site lamp 2 miles away. I would go with the 7-35. It is less finicky and those reticles are hard to see at 5x anyhow.

 

[blbennett1288]

updates on this comparison? I’m currently looking at a ATACR 5-25 F1

A full side by side comparison never happened. I couldn’t justify keeping the AT and AX. I never shot the AT after I got the AX. I sold the TT and use a 7-35 now. I am really happy with the NF.

Comparing in hindsight; I miss the TT parallax, and tool-less zero. The glass and turrets were also an upgrade.