Rifle Scopes Nightforce 4-20 ATACR vs 5-25 ATACR

[nick338]

Currently shooting a NF 4-16 on an M1A and starting to have trouble seeing holes on white paper at 600 yards depending on the light situation. Was just going to upgrade to a NF 5-25, however I keep hearing how optically inferior it is compared to other ATACR's.

So is the extra magnification going to outweigh what it lacks in optical performance or should I be looking at the 4-20 instead?

Please don't recommend another scope, I need capped windage turrets due to the way the rifle ejects the brass off the LRB mount and dings the turret, and I don't want the size of the 7-35 on this rifle, nor does it ever get shot past 1K.

 

[zero0zero]

I've heard the same about the 5-25.

I too have a 4-16, on an ar. I believe it's a very well rounded scope.

I'm interested in the 4-20 as well and how it stacks up glass wise. Threads are full with how bad it tunnels but Ive never seen anyone talk about how it is optically against the supposedly optically inferior 5-25.

I just picked up a used zeiss lrp s5 5-25x56. It's really nice but so far(I've only had it a couple days and need to mess with it in low light more to see if I can set it up better to get more out of it.) it doesn't really look any better than the atacr. I was thinking about going the 4-20 route and getting rid of the zeiss or putting it on something else. My gripe with the zeiss isn't the glass and the reticle and illumination are awesome, I just don't care for the turrets.

 

[Nik H]

Currently shooting a NF 4-16 on an M1A and starting to have trouble seeing holes on white paper at 600 yards depending on the light situation. Was just going to upgrade to a NF 5-25, however I keep hearing how optically inferior it is compared to other ATACR's.

So is the extra magnification going to outweigh what it lacks in optical performance or should I be looking at the 4-20 instead?

Please don't recommend another scope, I need capped windage turrets due to the way the rifle ejects the brass off the LRB mount and dings the turret, and I don't want the size of the 7-35 on this rifle, nor does it ever get shot past 1K.

I've owned a few ATACRs. Two 5-25, an original 4-16, and a 7-35.

I only own the 4-16 and 7-35 now. It is optically superior to the 5-25 and has been a great scope. It sits on my AI AT and gets used without any issues. The 5-25's optical clarity wasn't bad but it was not in the same class as the 7-35.

You talk about the size of the 7-35 but it is only 0.6" longer and 1.6 ounces heavier. It is a no-brainer to me. I have no experience with the 4-20. The lower magnification may not get you to where you want to be even if it is optically superior to the 5-25.

 

[CSTactical]

I've heard the same about the 5-25.

I too have a 4-16, on an ar. I believe it's a very well rounded scope.

I'm interested in the 4-20 as well and how it stacks up glass wise. Threads are full with how bad it tunnels but Ive never seen anyone talk about how it is optically against the supposedly optically inferior 5-25.

I just picked up a used zeiss lrp s5 5-25x56. It's really nice but so far(I've only had it a couple days and need to mess with it in low light more to see if I can set it up better to get more out of it.) it doesn't really look any better than the atacr. I was thinking about going the 4-20 route and getting rid of the zeiss or putting it on something else. My gripe with the zeiss isn't the glass and the reticle and illumination are awesome, I just don't care for the turrets.

Feel free to give me a call at 916-628-3490 and I can discuss the 4-20 ATACR vs. the 5-25 ATACR - Richard@CST

 

[nick338]

I actually picked up a 5-25 on a deal I couldn't refuse, so unless I hate it, that's the one I'm rolling with.

 

[zero0zero]

I've owned a few ATACRs. Two 5-25, an original 4-16, and a 7-35.

I only own the 4-16 and 7-35 now. It is optically superior to the 5-25 and has been a great scope. It sits on my AI AT and gets used without any issues. The 5-25's optical clarity wasn't bad but it was not in the same class as the 7-35.

You talk about the size of the 7-35 but it is only 0.6" longer and 1.6 ounces heavier. It is a no-brainer to me. I have no experience with the 4-20. The lower magnification may not get you to where you want to be even if it is optically superior to the 5-25.

Out of curiosity, how would you compare the 7-35 to the 4-16, optically? Where I live and shoot, I don't have much use for that high of a low and high end mag, but wondered if there is any difference.

 

[Nik H]

Out of curiosity, how would you compare the 7-35 to the 4-16, optically? Where I live and shoot, I don't have much use for that high of a low and high end mag, but wondered if there is any difference.

7-35 is better...the smaller objective is a little dark at magnifications above 10X but it is a great scope

 

[patriot07]

Of those 2, the 5-25 if you’re shooting at distance very often.

The 7-35 is the same size and considerably better if you’re above 10x

 

[zero0zero]

Of those 2, the 5-25 if you’re shooting at distance very often.

The 7-35 is the same size and considerably better if you’re above 10x

Have you used the 4-20? Are you saying the glass is just as good between the 4-20 and the 5-25?

 

[Xycod]

So the 7-35 is superior, my question is in what way, does it have a better dof, is the resolution better and was it tested, was equipment used, eyecharts, boosters, same conditions and at the same time.

Only asking because I’ve not seen a 5-25 f1 but have a few f2’s in 5-25 and a 7-35 and they’re optically identical in the ones I’ve got on the same power, again this is compared to the f2 version.

Also the f2 5-25 is literally a different designed scope from in that it’s close to 2 inches shorter and somehow a few ounces heavier. The f1 is also US marked where as the f2 5-25 says made in Japan. Don’t know if this matters because the 4-20 is also US marked.

 

[hafejd30]

I’ve owned the 4-16, 4-20 and 7-35. Only own the 7-35 now. I’d easily buy the 4-16 in a heartbeat again though. It doesn’t tunnel compared to the others. The 4-20 is a 5.5-20 in reality. But adds decent size especially going from the locking/low profile turret my 4-16 had to the standard turrets on the 4-20

Optically the 4-16 and 7-35 were the best. Personally if I was looking between the 5-25 and 7-35 I’d just go 7-35 as the size isn’t much different.

I sold my 4-16 and upgraded to the 4-20. I didn’t feel like the juice was worth the squeeze considering the size difference. Eventually moved on to ZCO 527 on that rifle.

 

[5RWill]

The 4-20 shouldn’t exist as it does right now. It should’ve been an ultra short replacement for the coveted 4-16. I think NF vastly missed the mark. It’s like 3oz lighter than the 5-25 and nearly the same size. Which again begs the question…why does it exist?

I had a 5-25 for a short while. Nothing wrong with that optic. An earlier version i looked at back in the day was meh. The one i owned with the Mil-C was gorgeous. Ultimately moved it to move to a ZP5. I haven’t had a 4-20 but again i don’t understand the place of the optic and think it will be out of production in years to come much like the 4-16x50 that no longer exist.

 

[nick338]

The 4-20 shouldn’t exist as it does right now. It should’ve been an ultra short replacement for the coveted 4-16. I think NF vastly missed the mark. It’s like 3oz lighter than the 5-25 and nearly the same size. Which again begs the question…why does it exist?

I had a 5-25 for a short while. Nothing wrong with that optic. An earlier version i looked at back in the day was meh. The one i owned with the Mil-C was gorgeous. Ultimately moved it to move to a ZP5. I haven’t had a 4-20 but again i don’t under and the place of the optic and think it will be out of production in years to come much like the 4-16x50 that no longer exist.

In the very limited time I've spent with the 5-25 since it was delivered Wednesday, I'm not seeing anything less than what I expected. It does tunnel a bit and I don't have a 7-35 to compare it to side by side, however it was $1500.00 less than my 5-27 ZCO and appears to justify it's price tag.

 

[zero0zero]

I would think it will last as long as it's obligated to for the mil contract.

Maybe they couldn't make it look as good as the 4-16x42 if they made it shorter. Probably the same reason it tunnels the first 1.5x. 4x erector vs 5x erector.

My 4-16x42(sample of one) is very usable through the whole mag range. It just barely gets a little darker after 13-14x but it's barely noticeable. I think that may be due to it being a 4x erector.

I'm sure the 4-20 is a 4-20 due to the contract. Maybe it could have been shorter and lighter if they had just made a 5-20 instead. That could possibly have solved the amount of tunneling it has and made it lighter and shorter. Alot of maybes, I'm speculating and have no idea what I'm talking about but I would definitely buy a shorter lighter 5-20 atacr that works just as well as my 4-16.

 

[71firebird400]

It's become a regurgitated talking point to dog the 5-25. Maybe I got lucky but mine, optically, outperforms my 4-16x42 and is neck and neck with my 7-35. There is always a variance in scopes, sometimes I think it's more than what we expect (especially considering what they cost). There are good and bad examples of everything. On that note my NX8 4-32 is one heck of a scope and folks warned me against it. I bought it anyways and wow....it is impressive optically.

 

[5RWill]

It's become a regurgitated talking point to dog the 5-25. Maybe I got lucky but mine, optically, outperforms my 4-16x42 and is neck and neck with my 7-35. There is always a variance in scopes, sometimes I think it's more than what we expect (especially considering what they cost). There are good and bad examples of everything. On that note my NX8 4-32 is one heck of a scope and folks warned me against it. I bought it anyways and wow....it is impressive optically.

I think there were early samples that weren't so great but we're talking nearly a decade ago. I.E. when I was still running a USO SN-3 in 2016 the one 5-25 I looked through was very meh. Obviously I can't ascertain whether or not NF has changed anything but the one I compared to my MK5 when it was brand new in 2018 (the very same one I owned later) was gorgeous and I was not in anyway disappointed with that optic. CA control was outstanding as has been on the ATACR line for sometime. Contrast was also vibrant, resolution top tier, and edge to edge clarity left nothing to be desired. It's a phenomenal optic, I think the price has really crept up over the years for such an old design though. It has never struck me as warranting a 3k price tag and as far as I know the design hasn't changed from when it was priced at $2500.

 

[zero0zero]

It's become a regurgitated talking point to dog the 5-25. Maybe I got lucky but mine, optically, outperforms my 4-16x42 and is neck and neck with my 7-35. There is always a variance in scopes, sometimes I think it's more than what we expect (especially considering what they cost). There are good and bad examples of everything. On that note my NX8 4-32 is one heck of a scope and folks warned me against it. I bought it anyways and wow....it is impressive optically.

I agree. I think, even with a company that has great qc, you will have an acceptability range, or a "it has to atleast meet these criteria". Sometimes you are going to get a scope that just meets that criteria and sometimes you will get one that exceeds the norm. I am on my 3rd t6xi 3-18. The first one looked great, the next 2, not so much. Some companies or lines seem to have a wider acceptibility band than others and maybe even combined with bad qc, or maybe they go hand in hand.

My 4-16 beside my zeiss lrp s5 5-25x56, I don't really see much of a difference in the glass. Maybe my zeiss just meets the criteria and the atacr exceeds it.

 

[71firebird400]

I agree. I think, even with a company that has great qc, you will have an acceptability range, or a "it has to atleast meet these criteria". Sometimes you are going to get a scope that just meets that criteria and sometimes you will get one that exceeds the norm. I am on my 3rd t6xi 3-18. The first one looked great, the next 2, not so much. Some companies or lines seem to have a wider acceptibility band than others and maybe even combined with bad qc, or maybe they go hand in hand.

My 4-16 beside my zeiss lrp s5 5-25x56, I don't really see much of a difference in the glass. Maybe my zeiss just meets the criteria and the atacr exceeds it.

I had two Leupold MK8 1.1-8's the other day and the difference in glass quality was astounding. It makes me take any single-example comparison with a grain of salt. It would be interesting to have someone like glassaholic or Ilya review two of the same model against each other.

 

[zero0zero]

Would be great to see one them compare a handful

 

[patriot07]

Have you used the 4-20? Are you saying the glass is just as good between the 4-20 and the 5-25?

I'm saying the 5-25 goes to 25x and the difference in glass is overcome by the difference in magnification.

 

[nick338]

Had the 5-25 out to 600 yards and honestly I'm impressed. Holes on paper were not hard to see and the eye box is not as forgiving as my ZCO, but overall I have no complaints about the glass quality whatsoever.

 

[physhphude]

I have the 4-16, 4-20 and 3 7-35’s

The 4-16 is fairly comparable to the 7-35. Maybe not quite as bright.

The 4-20 that I have is noticeably clearer and sharper than the 7-35 and 4-16 at the same magnification. It also has a slightly wider fov.

Perhaps I got a stellar 4-20. But side by side with a Zco 4-20, my atacr is noticeably better. Center resolution is the same. Color is more vibrant on the zco. But field flatness, edge resolution/sharpness, fov and eye box were all noticeably better on the atacr 4-20.

I think the atacr 4-20 is a sleeper because it’s large size and weight its magnification range.

 

[krumfola]

There are so many good choices out there at this point that it’s hard to pick something that wouldn’t do the job.

Glad to see the 4-20 is working for someone. I’m selling my 4-16 and I’ve been looking for something lighter but that 4-20 (although heavier) might be a contender at this point.

 

[parshal]

I haven't spent a lot of time behind the 4-20 which my buddy owns. I've owned at least 3-4 samples each of the 4-16, 5-25 and 7-35. I haven't figured out what people are complaining about with the 5-25.

I don't use any of my scopes at low end mag so tunneling doesn't matter to me. The 7-35 definitely tunnels, though.

If you run on the higher mag range all the time you're not gonna like the 4-16 due to FOV. If you like to run in the 12-20 range either of of the 56mm will work. Obviously the reticle will be smaller at the same mag range on the 7-35 vs the 5-25.

I've replaced all the 5-25 with 7-35 since there's virtually no weight or size difference. I rarely run my scopes over 25.

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

I've had a 5-25 for a few years now and I've never had a shooting situation that I felt it held me back from unlike other scopes. I used a buddies 7-35 for a bit and found the color to be more cold/blue compared to my 5-25. Didn't feel it offered anything over my scope and since I primarily sit at 12-15x felt the reticle presented better in the 5-25. Might be just in my head but that's what I saw.

 

[5RWill]

Having used the NX8 2.5-20 now I think 20x top end is about perfect. So 4-20 seems like the perfect mag range. This should've just been in a smaller package or at least lighter weight to somewhat differentiate it from it's 5-25 and 7-35 brethren. I see it going the way of the 4-16x50 ATACR.

 

[nick338]

I've been completely satisfied with the 5-25 since I bought it over the summer.

On another interesting note, NF has removed FOV from the specs for all scopes on the website.

 

[Hi Velocity]

I've been completely satisfied with the 5-25 since I bought it over the summer.

On another interesting note, NF has removed FOV from the specs for all scopes on the website.

I bought the 5-25 just before they came out with the 7-35 (grrrr). It's a great scope and you made an excellent choice. The only scope I have that I like better is the 7-35. Yes, I had to buy one once they were available.

I don't know why some people complain about them. I was doing some shooting at 100 yds. My friend was spotting for me. He said there is a fly on the target. I looked through the 5-25 and said yep, I see it. I shot it and my friend said I think you got it. Awesome scope in my opinion. No regrets for that purchase.

 

[Glassaholic]

I agree. I think, even with a company that has great qc, you will have an acceptability range, or a "it has to atleast meet these criteria". Sometimes you are going to get a scope that just meets that criteria and sometimes you will get one that exceeds the norm. I am on my 3rd t6xi 3-18. The first one looked great, the next 2, not so much. Some companies or lines seem to have a wider acceptibility band than others and maybe even combined with bad qc, or maybe they go hand in hand.

That is definitely my experience, sample variance plays a larger factor than most realize.

My 4-16 beside my zeiss lrp s5 5-25x56, I don't really see much of a difference in the glass. Maybe my zeiss just meets the criteria and the atacr exceeds it.

I had an S5 5-25, very nice but in some ways I liked the S3 6-36 better, I even liked the S3 turrets better than S5 turrets

It would be interesting to have someone like glassaholic or Ilya review two of the same model against each other.

That is on my list, was thinking of ordering 3 NF NX8 2.5-20x50's and putting them through the ringer; we'll see if it works out.

 

[Glassaholic]

Having used the NX8 2.5-20 now I think 20x top end is about perfect. So 4-20 seems like the perfect mag range. This should've just been in a smaller package or at least lighter weight to somewhat differentiate it from it's 5-25 and 7-35 brethren. I see it going the way of the 4-16x50 ATACR.

Pretty sure the NF 4-20 was to meet a military contract requirement. I agree with you Will, the scope doesn't make a lot of sense (outside of .mil requirements). In fairly typical NF fashion the FOV at the bottom is quite lacking, but significantly improves with magnification increase. Unless you "need" the bottom mag FOV it likely makes for a great design. Though it would be nice if the low pro turrets were available for it; however, since NF lost the lawsuit with Leupold on that design I doubt we'll see that happen anytime soon. Would love to see NF come out with ATACR II design with non-translating turrets and 6x erector.

 

[5RWill]

Pretty sure the NF 4-20 was to meet a military contract requirement. I agree with you Will, the scope doesn't make a lot of sense (outside of .mil requirements). In fairly typical NF fashion the FOV at the bottom is quite lacking, but significantly improves with magnification increase. Unless you "need" the bottom mag FOV it likely makes for a great design. Though it would be nice if the low pro turrets were available for it; however, since NF lost the lawsuit with Leupold on that design I doubt we'll see that happen anytime soon. Would love to see NF come out with ATACR II design with non-translating turrets and 6x erector.

Same. I also want them to get rid of the rotating eyepiece. I cannot begin to describe how annoying it is having to spin the damn scope cap on the NXS and ATACRs. They nailed that with the NX8. I feel like it’s talking into a black hole and it won’t change. Much like leupold keeps up charging for illumination lol

 

[vno.helix]

I understand the 4-16 has the whole eyepiece rotating as well as translating turrets. Does the 4-20 have a normal magnifying ring and non translating turrets?

Looking for something for my recently acquired 223 MTR and these 2 look pretty compelling.

Thanks

 

[hafejd30]

I understand the 4-16 has the whole eyepiece rotating as well as translating turrets. Does the 4-20 have a normal magnifying ring and non translating turrets?

Looking for something for my recently acquired 223 MTR and these 2 look pretty compelling.

Thanks

The 4-16 and 4-20 are built and work the same

Main differences are the 4-16 doesn’t tunnel where the 4-20 is like a 5.5-20

Also the low profile/locking elevation turret comes on the 4-16X42. Some 4-16 have the standard atacr turret like the 4-20/5-25/7-35 have

All atacr models have the rotating ocular

 

[Glassaholic]

Same. I also want them to get rid of the rotating eyepiece. I cannot begin to describe how annoying it is having to spin the damn scope cap on the NXS and ATACRs. They nailed that with the NX8. I feel like it’s talking into a black hole and it won’t change. Much like leupold keeps up charging for illumination lol

Right, the rotating ocular is annoying for cap lovers (myself included). Hence the hope for a Gen2 ATACR line which corrects lots of the current gen issues. Nightforce and Leupold move slowly to bring products to market, I suppose they have a big enough name they rely more upon brand loyalty vs innovation; not that they don't innovate, just takes them longer than most as they squeeze the last drops of ROI on older products before replacing.

 

[HD1911]

I can say now, after having owned one for a couple weeks, that the 4-20 ATACR is a really good 7-20x optic IMHO.

I like it so far. Don’t really have a need for the low end, so it doesn’t really bother me.

Eye box is solid, and it stays bright and clear all the way up to 20x.

Really good lowlight performance as well. The resolution/IQ on mine I actually would say is better than the 7-35 I used to have.

 

[NateVA]

Right, the rotating ocular is annoying for cap lovers (myself included). Hence the hope for a Gen2 ATACR line which corrects lots of the current gen issues. Nightforce and Leupold move slowly to bring products to market, I suppose they have a big enough name they rely more upon brand loyalty vs innovation; not that they don't innovate, just takes them longer than most as they squeeze the last drops of ROI on older products before replacing.

I'm holding out hope that NF (as well as other manufacturers) is holding out for the Swarovski FOV patent to end and then we'll be inundated with new unrestricted scopes across the board. Of course that has no basis in reality since I don't think NF cares about the patent in the first place.

 

[Hi Velocity]

Right, the rotating ocular is annoying for cap lovers (myself included). Hence the hope for a Gen2 ATACR line which corrects lots of the current gen issues. Nightforce and Leupold move slowly to bring products to market, I suppose they have a big enough name they rely more upon brand loyalty vs innovation; not that they don't innovate, just takes them longer than most as they squeeze the last drops of ROI on older products before replacing.

Numerous people here have made that statement about the ACTAR rotating ocular. I have two ATACR scopes and until I read about it here, I never knew there was an issue. The cap on mine doesn't rotate and I assume none of them do. Because of that, it has never been an issue for me.

The issues I have with my scopes are me. Old eyes and progressive lenses. LOL

 

[parshal]

The cap on mine doesn't rotate and I assume none of them do. Because of that, it has never been an issue for me.

What to you mean it doesn't rotate? When you adjust the magnification on an ATACR the scope cap rotates with it since it's attached to the eyepiece.

 

[hafejd30]

Numerous people here have made that statement about the ACTAR rotating ocular. I have two ATACR scopes and until I read about it here, I never knew there was an issue. The cap on mine doesn't rotate and I assume none of them do. Because of that, it has never been an issue for me.

The issues I have with my scopes are me. Old eyes and progressive lenses. LOL

Please elaborate

Most come with tenebraex caps that rotate which helps compensate for the ocular. But to my knowledge all atacr oculars rotate. At least all the ones I’ve owned

The NX8 or SHV maybe don’t. But the NXS/ATACR lines do that I’ve owned

 

[Hi Velocity]

What to you mean it doesn't rotate? When you adjust the magnification on an ATACR the scope cap rotates with it since it's attached to the eyepiece.

Maybe I'm talking about something different. I call the eye cap the protective cover that snaps over the ocular glass. In the photo in post 35 above, you see the eye cap on top and seems to be a solid connection. Mine would just roll over to the side on it's own or I could move it. I have a 5-25x56 and a 7-35x56. Both are the same. I can rotate the caps when flipped open without moving the ocular/magnification adjustment. I thought they were all like that. I know Glassaholic knows way more about scopes than I do, but apparently my caps are different.

 

[parshal]

When this is discussed, they're talking about the eyepiece. When you rotate the mag ring the entire eyepiece moves. So, if you have the eyepiece cap on and flipped open, it will rotate with the eyepiece. If you never have the eyepiece cover on you may never notice the entire eyepiece moving.

This part of this video shows it.

 

[Hi Velocity]

Please elaborate

Most come with tenebraex caps that rotate which helps compensate for the ocular. But to my knowledge all atacr oculars rotate. At least all the ones I’ve owned

The NX8 or SHV maybe don’t. But the NXS/ATACR lines do that I’ve owned

Maybe I misunderstood his comment. Of course my ocular rotates, but the eye/scope caps rotate independently when flipped open, but not with the ocular/magnification adjustment. What I have heard others complaim about before is the mag adjustment and the scope cap move together. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I confused things. Glassaholic mention cap lovers, so I assumed he was talking about the cap moving with the mag adjustment.

 

[parshal]

They do move and you can rotate the eye cap independently. However, if you're running this is competition and rotate out and then in again to find a target the cover gets in the way. If you just run off a table at a range it's a non-issue.

 

[Hi Velocity]

When this is discussed, they're talking about the eyepiece. When you rotate the mag ring the entire eyepiece moves. So, if you have the eyepiece cap on and flipped open, it will rotate with the eyepiece. If you never have the eyepiece cover on you may never notice the entire eyepiece moving.

This part of this video shows it.

When my cap is flipped open, it does not move when you adjust the magnification. It falls to one side or the other or I can move it independently of the mag/eyepiece.

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

Some say the 100 concepts rear scope cap might be a good solution for the atacr rear rotating magnification eyepiece. I haven't tried the 100 concepts on my 4-16 atacr yet but plan to in the future.

 

[5RWill]

Some say the 100 concepts rear scope cap might be a good solution for the atacr rear rotating magnification eyepiece. I haven't tried the 100 concepts on my 4-16 atacr yet but plan to in the future.

Lemme know I’ll be ordering some if so. But still at the 6 o’clock position my bolt is gonna hit it i feel like

 

[Glassaholic]

Maybe I misunderstood his comment. Of course my ocular rotates, but the eye/scope caps rotate independently when flipped open, but not with the ocular/magnification adjustment. What I have heard others complaim about before is the mag adjustment and the scope cap move together. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I confused things. Glassaholic mention cap lovers, so I assumed he was talking about the cap moving with the mag adjustment.

Like others have mentioned, even though Tenebraex can rotate independent of the eyepiece it is still not fixed (unless yours is so loose it just falls to wherever gravity takes it) and is an annoyance for some. That's all I meant by "cap lovers" - those who prefer to run caps but don't want the annoyance if they prefer their caps in a fixed location.

 

[Nik H]

Like others have mentioned, even though Tenebraex can rotate independent of the eyepiece it is still not fixed (unless yours is so loose it just falls to wherever gravity takes it) and is an annoyance for some. That's all I meant by "cap lovers" - those who prefer to run caps but don't want the annoyance if they prefer their caps in a fixed location.

Mine stays in place wherever I put it. Is that what you mean when you say "fixed"?

I find the easiest thing is to remove the ocular cover when I shoot.

 

[Glassaholic]

Mine stays in place wherever I put it. Is that what you mean when you say "fixed"?

Correct, so if you setup your cap to flip to the 3 o'clock position and you adjust the magnification, your cap is no longer at 3 o'clock. You can now spin your Tenebraex cap back to 3, but another mag adjust and it's off again. Some Tene caps are so loose they just fall, but fall the the wrong side and now it might interfere with bolt or CH. It's not the end of the world, just an annoyance.

 

[Nik H]

Correct, so if you setup your cap to flip to the 3 o'clock position and you adjust the magnification, your cap is no longer at 3 o'clock. You can now spin your Tenebraex cap back to 3, but another mag adjust and it's off again. Some Tene caps are so loose they just fall, but fall the the wrong side and now it might interfere with bolt or CH. It's not the end of the world, just an annoyance.

Thanks

Mine are pretty stable but it is an annoyance. I just remove the cap when shooting.