Thoughts on the night force ATACR 4-16 x 42 or NX8 2.5-20 for a JP 6.5 Creed Ar-10. Using it for hunting 0-600 and steel out to 1K. These would be the top end of my budget.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Nightforce ATACR 4-16 x42 or NX8 2.5-20 for 6.5 gasser
- Thread starter Texaslongshot
- Start date
4-16. I’ve had both. ATACRs are simply better scopes. It’s hard to quantify.
4-16x ATACR FFP with the pop out button zerostop
I ring steel with the SFP version all the time. 16x makes for near impossible spotting misses at 1k, but hitting is easy.
NX8 has not been as universally loved as the ATACR 4-16x. Great specs on paper, but doesn't deliver the way the ATACR does.
I ring steel with the SFP version all the time. 16x makes for near impossible spotting misses at 1k, but hitting is easy.
NX8 has not been as universally loved as the ATACR 4-16x. Great specs on paper, but doesn't deliver the way the ATACR does.
You sacrifice some forgiveness with regard to eyebox and parallax with the NX8, essentially the rule with shorter scopes with high magnification. ATACR also has better turrets than NX8. If you’re going to use clipons then the NX8 may serve you a bit better as 4x is a bit high at the low end.
Thanks for the feed back. It really helps to get the opinion of you guys who have handled these scopes.
The Atacr feels like a high end scope that rivals the quality of other top brands like Schmidt, ZCO, etc. the NX8 oozes Asian made junk. It’s not BAD but it’s not in the same league of build quality or design in my opinion and after playing with them I’d never buy one. Still have my 7-35 Atacr however.
Well, I believe the NX8 is $6-700 cheaper. I bought one because I was able to pick it up for $1575 with a LaRue mount and I've been pretty happy with it. It does have a greater magnification range, which is nice. Glass is very good. Not heavy for what it is. However, eye box is somewhat tight and it has the worst depth of field of any scope I own. Set the parallax for 300 yards and a target at 350 yards will be blurry. So that's something you should be aware of.
I have both and don't think I would say the nx8 feels like junk. I think either one would be good. I'd probably reccomend the ATACR. I like the features more as long as you aren't running a clipon. The 2.5x versus 4x on the bottom end might make a difference depending on your hunting style as well. I've shot both out to 1000yds on steel and never felt handicapped by either.
That said for hunting I run my NX8 2.5-20 and NXS2.5-10x42. But on bolt guns and I can shoot really close at game sometimes. I tried to use my ATACR 4-16x42 but ended up taking it back off.
That said for hunting I run my NX8 2.5-20 and NXS2.5-10x42. But on bolt guns and I can shoot really close at game sometimes. I tried to use my ATACR 4-16x42 but ended up taking it back off.
This is the perfect example of why I would lean ATACR for a gas gun. The whole point of the gasser is quicker transitions and follow up shots so depth of field is a huge factor.
I can live with the NX8s tighter eyebox or glass as both are useable but depth of field is the reason I shy from the NX8 on a gasser.
Makes for a great hunting optic where generally you have time to get parallax right.
Sorry to kind of necro a thread, but I am debating this exact same thing currently. However, I'm trying to get the NF through a friend who has an active EV account, and the only one currently available in Mil-XT is the 7-35 ATACR. It's going on an sp10 shooting currently 700y regularly with 1000y+ available to me if i choose. The only other in-stock option for mil-xt is the 2.5-20 NX8. I'm not reading great things about the NX8 at longer ranges especially, thoughts? I think 7-35 is really a bit much for what I'm trying to do, and i'm worried that in FFP between 12-18 mag (where i'll be doing most of the shooting, likely) the reticle won't be super usable because of the high top end mag on the 35x.
Most generic pics of "XYZ reticle" layouts are done at 15x as a common standard. With FFP reticules, if anything you will have a harder time at the smaller mag ranges like 4-8x. The 4-16x may have a slightly thicker reticle than the 7-35, but this is typically for the purpose of seeing them better wide open.
I have both, NX8 2.5-20 Mil-C on an XP-100 in 6.5 Cm & the 4-16 Atacr Mil-C on a 20" 308 bolt gun, Hands down the 4-16 Atacr is better.
Glass, Turrets, Eyebox and the like. If its something you plan on seriously using, with the NX8 you'll be left wanting for more.
if you do go NX8 2.5-20 make sure you get one that is of later manufacture (within the last year or so) NF revamped them, the early manufacture models had an extremely tight eyebox, focus and parallax issues ( had one on a Vudoo in late '19).
Glass, Turrets, Eyebox and the like. If its something you plan on seriously using, with the NX8 you'll be left wanting for more.
if you do go NX8 2.5-20 make sure you get one that is of later manufacture (within the last year or so) NF revamped them, the early manufacture models had an extremely tight eyebox, focus and parallax issues ( had one on a Vudoo in late '19).
This is my only prs style gun, and I plan to keep it essentially forever. Guess I'll try to be patient and wait for an atacr either here or elsewhere
What about a Burris xtr3? People seem to like them compared to an nx8, but how does it stack up against an atacr?
it seems like its a rite of passage honestly, every single forum has its own version of this thread with varying degrees of 'just buy the atacr', but that seems to be the general consensus lol.
the 4-16 in mil-xt is also nearly impossible to find retail at a decent price, and they rarely come up for sale both here and on other sale forums. Guess that means that literally everyone is keeping theirs.
Fair enough. how about the 4-16 compared to a 5-25 atacr? any noticeable changes to things like CA?
Poors love to compare their inferior shit to top tier. Doesn't mean it's on the same level. Natchez was just selling refurbished XTR3's if that tells you anything.
yes, everyone wants to be told something cheap is 'just as good'. in this case, I should've clarified. I'm a complete PRS beginner, I know the XTR won't optically be as good as an ATACR, but would it be 'just as good' for me in particular. at over a thousand dollars less, it is tempting.
Phillipino optics don't have a great track record of reliability. There's always the new hot flavor of them that people love for the $$ until enough of them fail to leave a bad taste in peoples mouths. If you want reliability stick to Japanese, USA, Canadian, and European optics.
Id honestly say i like my mk5 3-18 just as much as my atacrs easier to find and alot cheaper if you dont need illumination
I do need illumination, my normal range is normally very shadowed, especially past 500y. Also, leupold again misses the mark imo with reticles...I'm not a huge fan of tremor, horus is fine but they don't offer an illumination.
That's the one crux with the leupold besides reticles. Illumination should come standard. I just put a MK5 on my MK12 Mod H and honestly it's form factor is nearly perfect for a gas gun. It was between this and the ATACR for me but due to price difference and a good deal on the hide I went with the MK5. The CCH reticle is also really growing on me.
blows my mind that leupold is perfectly capable of making a great reticle, with great glass and form factor...and then just doesn't even offer an illuminated version. If I didn't live in the mountains meaning im almost always shooting occluded I wouldve gone with a mk5 already.
I used to be surprised by this, but I've since resigned Leupold product decisions to a team of individuals who know little about the civilian market and so I do not expect them to produce a scope that will be what most of us are looking for, I expect them to get close from time to time, but to miss the mark most of the time. How many more 3.6-18x44's would they sell if they offered a good tree reticle, and how many more would they sell if illumination was included as standard like every other manufacturer on the face of this earth! But if you are going to offer illumination as an option, then don't make some asinine decision to have a $500+ dollar upcharge for it!!! And since I'm still on my soapbox, I'll go ahead and state the other stupid decision - don't make a scope that's 35mm, that extra mm over the default standard (34mm) does absolutely nothing for this scope that other 34mm scopes can't already do. And yet, even with all these negatives, somehow this scope continues to sell on the market but I have to wonder if it's more because of the Leupold name vs. anything else.
Okay, off my soapbox now
haha, absolutely. It pains me that they get so close to the mark so often and then fail at the last possible second.I used to be surprised by this, but I've since resigned Leupold product decisions to a team of individuals who know little about the civilian market and so I do not expect them to produce a scope that will be what most of us are looking for, I expect them to get close from time to time, but to miss the mark most of the time. How many more 3.6-18x44's would they sell if they offered a good tree reticle, and how many more would they sell if illumination was included as standard like every other manufacturer on the face of this earth! But if you are going to offer illumination as an option, then don't make some asinine decision to have a $500+ dollar upcharge for it!!! And since I'm still on my soapbox, I'll go ahead and state the other stupid decision - don't make a scope that's 35mm, that extra mm over the default standard (34mm) does absolutely nothing for this scope that other 34mm scopes can't already do. And yet, even with all these negatives, somehow this scope continues to sell on the market but I have to wonder if it's more because of the Leupold name vs. anything else.
Okay, off my soapbox now
I waited several months, nearly a year, for a 4-16x42 MIL-XT to show up on Eurooptic as a demo or used. I was tempted several times to pick up something else, after getting it, I am very glad I picked up what I wanted. It's reputation is well earned and after getting it, I realized I should have just picked it up at retail, it is well worth the price.
I do not notice a significant difference in glass quality between the 5-25x56 and 4-16x42. I am using the 5-25 on a SCAR 20 that I shoot out to 1200 yards and it is exactly what I want, I know its a heavy rifle and I knew I was getting a heavy optic. The 4-16 is on my SPRish build that I shoot out to 800 yards frequently, it is also heavier than the optic it replaced, but a much better fit for my needs.
I do not notice a significant difference in glass quality between the 5-25x56 and 4-16x42. I am using the 5-25 on a SCAR 20 that I shoot out to 1200 yards and it is exactly what I want, I know its a heavy rifle and I knew I was getting a heavy optic. The 4-16 is on my SPRish build that I shoot out to 800 yards frequently, it is also heavier than the optic it replaced, but a much better fit for my needs.
The 7-35 ATACR is ubiquitous on PRS match rifles for a reason. It's an excellent scope, and would be a great fit on a 22" 6.5 Creedmoor match gun.
You'd probably end up running the scope on 15-20 power most of the time, and the ATACR has a massive field of view in the middle of it's power range. The reticle is plenty useable down to 10x. It's also going to be much easier to get behind and much more forgiving in terms of depth of field and parallax when compared to an NX8.
There will probably be dozens of ATACRs at any club match in the AC region, and many of the guys who own them would be happy to let a new shooter look through one at some point during the day.
Very true, I really do need to go to a match. I wound up purchasing a March high master on sale instead since it was about the same price as an atacr.
I switched from the ATACR to the March and don’t regret it. FOV and reticle won me over.
Mine should be here today or tomorrow, I look forward to getting my dope this weekend. I'm going to try to make it to the match on the 16th if I can get my dope settled
I think you'll be happy with this scope. IMO it is March's best offering to date for dynamic style shooting, sure there are other scopes that are better optically but none that offer everything the March does. Every scope decision is a compromise in some way, we have to try to understand the compromises so we can make better decisions.
As far as NF goes. The 4-16 has the best turrets imo. I know the legal issues with Leupold but they managed to execute the design much better than Leupold did with the mark 5.
Sorry to revive this thread again but I am looking at these exact two scopes as well;
My rifle is a Ruger Precision Rifle in .308 with a 20 inch barrel. It will be mostly used for target shooting out to as far as I can make the .308 work with that barrel length.
I have been going back and forth between the ATACR 4-16x42 F1 or the NX8 2.5-20x50 F1 for a while. There is only about a $300 AUD difference between the two but I recently came across a good deal on a used NX8.
I am leaning towards the MIL-XT reticle, or the tremor...
My rifle is a Ruger Precision Rifle in .308 with a 20 inch barrel. It will be mostly used for target shooting out to as far as I can make the .308 work with that barrel length.
I have been going back and forth between the ATACR 4-16x42 F1 or the NX8 2.5-20x50 F1 for a while. There is only about a $300 AUD difference between the two but I recently came across a good deal on a used NX8.
I am leaning towards the MIL-XT reticle, or the tremor...
Nx8 doesn’t have competitors if your using for hunting and with thermal clip ons. And want the high end.
ATACR slightly better. Less finicky parallax when changing range also like going from 300-700
I thought this was a really good review of the NX8, is this guy a member here ?
Thanks for the shout out! To help with op. I just finished filming for the 4-16 and it is a tremendous scope. Both of these are really good for what they are. The only things that bothered me externally with the Nx8 is lack of locking elevation turret. But that's really it. With the atacr it's the entire rear eyepiece spins. But that is for better weather sealing because of fewer moving parts.
Internally it's the limitation of the reticle options for the Nx8 that make them extremely hard to see at lower magnification. With the atacr it's the large amount of scope body. However one is far more of a nit pick then the other.
It'll come down primarily to your ultimate goal and use for the scope. You really can't go wrong with either one.
If nf puts a DMX style reticle in the Nx8, I will be buying one.
@C_Does how far does the Atacr 4-16 FFP blow the cheap Athlon Helos 2-12 outa the water?
Bought that Helos cheap used because I wanted to test out the rifle first. But always had my eye on the atacr. Biggest issue I’ve found with the Helos is that center dot is just too big for target shooting.
Bought that Helos cheap used because I wanted to test out the rifle first. But always had my eye on the atacr. Biggest issue I’ve found with the Helos is that center dot is just too big for target shooting.
Last edited:
They aren't on the same planet as far as durability and precision go. But they are at the same gap price wise. For a budget build the Helos is about as good as one can get for the price and performance. It's held up great for me so far. I plan on doing a follow up on how well it's held up. The 1moa center dot on the Helos is perfectly fine for me and my style of shooting. Especially considering my gun with most ammo is right around 1moa anyway. it's really easy to just put the dot on target and let her rip.
The atacr is one gorgeous scope. I've reviewed and owned many 4-16's over the years. Some with tremendous fov and views through (p4xi) and some of a lower budget that were nice (arken sh4) with several in between. The atacr is by far the most expensive, but the best all rounder. The illumination on the one I had wasn't that bright. Even with a new battery. But everything else was absolutely top tier as one would expect. The 4x multiplier is part of the reason why it's so good imo. Some people want more and more and more magnification, but sometimes give up a lot get it. Usually in the areas of max usability.
There are of course exceptions to any rule. But it all comes down to what the purchaser and user want.
Similar threads
