Rifle Scopes Nightforce 4-16x50 F1

[BallisticPrimate]

There's not a lot of info out there on this scope. Anyone run one? I've got a 7-35 with the Mil-XT and I'm eyeing the 4-16 with the same reticle for a more compact/lighter weight rifle for shorter-range matches and a bit of hunting. I know the NX8 models are all the rage but I'd prefer to stay with the ATACR's unless the NX8's offer the same level of reliability/toughness and same/similar glass. Thanks

 

[jaywmustang]

I haven’t seen many review on that scope

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Me neither, I wonder why the field of view specs between the 4-16x42 and the 4-16x50 aren't more pronounced, I would have thought the 50m objective would produce better numbers than the NF website suggests. That said I'm still chasing user feedback on the 4-16x50 ATACR, I like that NF scaled the reticle subtensions on the mil-xt. In the x16 ATACR the main cross-hair is .043, rather than.033 as it is in the x25 & x35 ATACR. For some reason Nightforce does not appear to have scaled the reticle for the Mil-C reticle.

 

[MPDS13]

I am interested to hear feedback as well. I’m in the same boat. Been wanting a 4-16 for a smaller semiauto setup over my main bolt gun. Love the MilXT reticle as well.

 

[Bandit31]

I was in the market for one for some time until Terry Cross posted something in the original thread awhile back with some details from someone with insider info on the 42mm vs 50mm. After reading it, felt the pro’s sided with the 42mm and just kept buying them instead.

The new 4-16x50F1 is .6" longer and 3 ounces heavier....all to provide about 40 seconds longer of twilight time.....and it does not have the low profile ZeroHold elevation adjustment like the 42. The smaller objective actually provides a super forgiving parallax range. The 50mm requires more adjustment. On the 42, you can pretty much focus it/remove parallax at anywhere between 100-200 and be parallax free to 7-800 yards."

 

[RFutch]

Curious why does the smaller objective give you a more forgiving parallax?

@koshkin

 

[Deadman Pointers]

I purchased the 42mm version, and I would have likely been happier with the 50mm. I have it mounted in 1" or so rings and the scope interferes with R700 bolt handle manipulation.

 

[LMT/556]

I have the 4x16x42 ATACR and it's hardly compact. Glass is superb, red/green LED option is nice. Controls are solid NF as expected. I had the NX8 and sold it to fund this one but I'm going to acquire the ATACR 1x8 version. The 34mm tubes make them seem thick for lack of a better word...

 

[TigernLionGSP]

Got one in MOAR . Great glass. I had on my .308. I moved to the 6.5 gang and to MIL's
so hate to sell it but need funds to put towards a NX8 with MIL-X rec. If I could I would keep it and put it back on a .308

 

[Hogrider2000]

I have an ATACR 4-16 42 F1 that will be for sale soon. Great scope but to long for my custom 6.5 Creedmoor when I use NV. The NV is even with the flash hidder. Great glass but as LMT/556 said "hardly compact". It is new and in Larue mounts. MOA.

 

[TerribleOne]

Considering one of these scopes as well, used one out to 600 meters the other day and I was impressed. I was using 20x power on my Leupold LRP and only 12 on the ATACR, and could see the target alot better. Be Keen to hear some views as well, with the $700 price difference here in OZ between the 16x and 25x ATACR. It's a contender as will leave me change for a decent mount.
Thanks

 

[TangoSierra916]

I had one for a bit on an ar10 and loved it. I really prefer the "normal" style ATACR turrets vs the "zero-hold" turret the x42 has. But the x42 is solid as well if you want a lower profile with locking at 0 elevation turret.

 

[Campt413]

I have a 42mm model and I've also been eyeing a 50mm. I will say that I'm not a huge fan of the locking turret. I like the originals better. (Plus the 50mm just looks more proportional than the 42mm does... And we all know it's all about looking good)

 

[Mk32784]

I run the 50mm 4-16 on my PRS gun. I like the bigger non-locking turrets and don't really mind the weight and size.

Looking through both I would have a hard time telling them apart.

 

[gr8fuldoug]

Just a heads up, as part of our "Red Wednesday Sale" today if you call in, 516-217-1000, we can offer you the Schmidt & Bender Klassik 4-16x50 - P3 #847-811-862-30-08B26 for only $1,149.99

 

[B-P-UU]

What would you like to know?

 

[BallisticPrimate]

What would you like to know?

View attachment 7149707

View attachment 7149708

Awesome. Can you confirm the NF specs re FOV? Seems that despite the larger objective on the 50mm there's virtually no change to FOV? I'm not sure how they managed that

 

[Krazy_jim]

Looking at the specs i dont see the point of the 50mm objective.

Im torn between the 4-16x42 NF or the 3.6-18 MK5 for my next hunting scope

 

[RFutch]

Awesome. Can you confirm the NF specs re FOV? Seems that despite the larger objective on the 50mm there's virtually no change to FOV? I'm not sure how they managed that

I'm curious about this as well.

 

[B-P-UU]

Awesome. Can you confirm the NF specs re FOV? Seems that despite the larger objective on the 50mm there's virtually no change to FOV? I'm not sure how they managed that

I'll have to get them out side by side as I don't remember... I'm not a guru, but I didn't think objective size had a bearing on FOV.. again, could be wrong on that point.

 

[B-P-UU]

Looking at the specs i dont see the point of the 50mm objective.

Im torn between the 4-16x42 NF or the 3.6-18 MK5 for my next hunting scope

I wouldn't get hung up on objective size.. these 2 NF's are, for all intents and purposes, the same scope.
I would pick the turret style you like better (short and locking vs. Tall w/ zero stop) and call it a day.
The 42mm does seem to be slightly less picky on the parallax adjustment.

MIL-R reticle is a little better for hunting rig in my opinion as well (vs. MIL-C). I run MIL-C in my match rifles.

 

[jp_over]

Excellent info. I've been looking at this scope as well specifically for the zero hold feature.

 

[Hogrider2000]

take a look at mine. It is for sale and in Larue mounts now. And it is as new.
Great scope and great price and ready to ship in the box.

 

[deersniper]

I like the zero hold I wish every NF had it

 

[jp_over]

take a look at mine. It is for sale and in Larue mounts now. And it is as new.
Great scope and great price and ready to ship in the box.

Will do; thanks!

 

[arob]

FOV is controlled in the ocular not the objective.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

FOV is controlled in the ocular not the objective.

I wasn't aware of that, good info.

 

[LakuNoc]

I wouldn't get hung up on objective size.. these 2 NF's are, for all intents and purposes, the same scope.
I would pick the turret style you like better (short and locking vs. Tall w/ zero stop) and call it a day.
The 42mm does seem to be slightly less picky on the parallax adjustment.

MIL-R reticle is a little better for hunting rig in my opinion as well (vs. MIL-C). I run MIL-C in my match rifles.

I have 4-16x50 and i would go also with MIL-R Reticle for hunting.

 

[nrspence]

I went back and forth for months between the nx8 and 4-16x50 ATACR, 4-16x42... finally decided to go ATACR 50mm, and just because of the way it looks. I went ATACR over mx8 because most are saying the glass is a bit better. I also went with the Mil XT reticle. I bought it with the military discount, so now the waiting game.

 

[nrspence]

What would you like to know?

View attachment 7149707

View attachment 7149708

What heights rings did you go use with the 50mm?

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Shot this guy and placed 2nd in a comp on the weekend. With the Mil-XT the 4-16 is a near perfect short/mid range optic.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

What heights rings did you go use with the 50mm?

BBUU can confirm but those look like APA .856 rings: https://www.americanprecisionarms.com/collections/scope-rings/products/34mm-scope-rings

 

[B-P-UU]

BBUU can confirm but those look like APA .856 rings: https://www.americanprecisionarms.com/collections/scope-rings/products/34mm-scope-rings

Correct, APA .856's for both.

 

[Glassaholic]

Shot this guy and placed 2nd in a comp on the weekend. With the Mil-XT the 4-16 is a near perfect short/mid range optic.

View attachment 7168497

Nice rig! Doesn't the 50mm version not have a zero stop or something strange like that, I thought there was something quirky about the 50 vs. the 42

 

[nrspence]

Nice rig! Doesn't the 50mm version not have a zero stop or something strange like that, I thought there was something quirky about the 50 vs. the 42

It has a zero stop, but unlike the 42mm objective no locking turret.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Nice rig! Doesn't the 50mm version not have a zero stop or something strange like that, I thought there was something quirky about the 50 vs. the 42

I have both the x42 and x50 versions of the 4-16 ATACR. Both are superb optics. In terms of how tactile they are I prefer the turrets on the x50 model, they perfectly match the feel of the 7-35 and are equally easily readable. The advantage of the x42 is that is can be mounted lower to the barrel, which is useful on a hunting rig. The locking turret is very nicely executed on the x42, and in terms of low light performance I cannot discern much difference between the x50 and x42. I will say that for hunting I feel quite strongly that the Mil-R reticle is superior to either the Mil-C or Mil-Xt - the C/Xt are better at everything else so again it's a case of horses for courses.

 

[HillBilly n TX]

Currently have a 4-16x50 waiting for one the new KAC SR-25 6.5 Creedmoor when released.

 

[B-P-UU]

I have both the x42 and x50 versions of the 4-16 ATACR. Both are superb optics. In terms of how tactile they are I prefer the turrets on the x50 model, they perfectly match the feel of the 7-35 and are equally easily readable. The advantage of the x42 is that is can be mounted lower to the barrel, which is useful on a hunting rig. The locking turret is very nicely executed on the x42, and in terms of low light performance I cannot discern much difference between the x50 and x42. I will say that for hunting I feel quite strongly that the Mil-R reticle is superior to either the Mil-C or Mil-Xt - the C/Xt are better at everything else so again it's a case of horses for courses.

The x42 currently resides on my 6.5CM hunting rifle:

View attachment 7168949

Agree with all of your comments.

 

[B-P-UU]

Brief comparisons between the ATACR and NX8:

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/nx8-and-atacr-initial-thoughts.6966977/

 

[natdscott]

Curious why does the smaller objective give you a more forgiving parallax?

@koshkin

Reduces the exit pupil.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have both the x42 and x50 versions of the 4-16 ATACR. Both are superb optics. In terms of how tactile they are I prefer the turrets on the x50 model, they perfectly match the feel of the 7-35 and are equally easily readable. The advantage of the x42 is that is can be mounted lower to the barrel, which is useful on a hunting rig. The locking turret is very nicely executed on the x42, and in terms of low light performance I cannot discern much difference between the x50 and x42. I will say that for hunting I feel quite strongly that the Mil-R reticle is superior to either the Mil-C or Mil-Xt - the C/Xt are better at everything else so again it's a case of horses for courses.

The x42 currently resides on my 6.5CM hunting rifle:

View attachment 7168949

Thank you BP, appreciate that short write-up that really helps especially with your thoughts on the turret feel on the 50 matching the 7-35 feel. Hopefully in a few weeks @jwknutson17 and I will be able to do a short comparison of the ATACR 4-16, the Minox ZP5 3-15 and the Burris XTR III 3.3-18

 

[nrspence]

Thank you BP, appreciate that short write-up that really helps especially with your thoughts on the turret feel on the 50 matching the 7-35 feel. Hopefully in a few weeks @jwknutson17 and I will be able to do a short comparison of the ATACR 4-16, the Minox ZP5 3-15 and the Burris XTR III 3.3-18

Look forward to that comparison.

 

[Atowne1]

I have the 4x16x42 ATACR and it's hardly compact. Glass is superb, red/green LED option is nice. Controls are solid NF as expected. I had the NX8 and sold it to fund this one but I'm going to acquire the ATACR 1x8 version. The 34mm tubes make them seem thick for lack of a better word...

Wondering which NX8 you sold? I have an ATACR 4-16x50 on order right now, but am wondering if maybe I should have gone with the NX8 4-32x50.

 

[LMT/556]

I sold an NX8 1x8, bought a used ATACR 4x16x42 with the proceeds, and have an ATACR 1x8 on order.