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.