Rifle Scopes Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

[MeasuredResponse]

Hi all,

This is probably dated but I was unable to find information 8 months ago when I needed to make a decision. I ended up buying both and sold the 50. My concern was light emission differences between the 42 and 50mm objective lenses.

I was certain the 50 would be brighter but was wrong (noticeably anyway). They were the same.

After looking through both, I could not tell the difference. There was a camera crew filming near my home and I asked if they could tell the difference. They were a little impatient with me but did take a moment to use some equipment to measure difference. In the short time I spoke with them ... I did not have the chance to inquire about or inspect the technology they used ... but the bottom line was that the difference would be very difficult for the naked eye to notice regardless of lighting conditions.

Seeing and hearing that I chose the 42. My reasoning was the lower profile due to the objective lens, shorter and wider elevation turret and the zero hold over the zero stop.

Hopes this helps someone trying to decide.

These pictures are the best comparisons I could get through a camera. Distance - 739 yards Leica 1600-B. If one looks darker, it is either the clouds or my photography skills with a smartphone.

Best, John

4-16x42

4-16x50

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Forgot to mention ... I assume if one is spending that much on an optic they do their homework but it is important to know that on the MIL-T reticle, only the stadia and main vertical and horizontal lines are illuminated, none of the tree or numbers. IIRC NF told me it was because the military thought it was too busy. Please check my source if you need the reason on that but I’m pretty sure that’s what they told me.

 

[Thorbeast]

Were you able to evaluate these scopes in low light conditions? I have the x42 and it's a surprisingly nice scope considering the small objective, but I've always been curious if the x50 offered any improvement in less than ideal lighting conditions. Thanks!

 

[thehun]

I've been considering the ATACR 4-16X42 F1 but not sure if I am ready to part with my Schmidt Bender 3-20 Ultra Short to do it...

 

[Thorbeast]

I've been considering the ATACR 4-16X42 F1 but not sure if I am ready to part with my Schmidt Bender 3-20 Ultra Short to do it...

What do hope to gain by switching from the S&B? Those ultra shorts were all the rage a few years back, what about it leaves you wanting?

 

[LSUbeatUby40]

In that setting the 50 is brighter in that the colors of the building look more washed out than the 42 but in those conditions I'd rather have more color clarity. I'm sure in lowlight conditions the 50 makes up the difference.

 

[thehun]

Oh I love my Ultra Short...only reason...get below 13" in length...I like stubby, short high end optics...been considering the ATACR 4-16x42 as well as the Kahles K318i...

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Were you able to evaluate these scopes in low light conditions? I have the x42 and it's a surprisingly nice scope considering the small objective, but I've always been curious if the x50 offered any improvement in less than ideal lighting conditions. Thanks!

Yes, I could not tell the difference. I never checked at night with illumination but early dawn and late dusk were the same to me with and without illumination. The green/red illumination is a nice combo. I personally like the green ... it seems to allow me to aquire targets faster.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

What do hope to gain by switching from the S&B? Those ultra shorts were all the rage a few years back, what about it leaves you wanting?

I always wanted to try S&B but none of the places that give me discounts offer them at great prices. Unfortunately, I only have NF, Vortex and Leupold.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

In that setting the 50 is brighter in that the colors of the building look more washed out than the 42 but in those conditions I'd rather have more color clarity. I'm sure in lowlight conditions the 50 makes up the difference.

I did not find that to be true. My pictures differences could be a change in cloud cover or my camera angle. I spent a week looking through both in many different lighting conditions and never saw a difference in the 2.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Oh I love my Ultra Short...only reason...get below 13" in length...I like stubby, short high end optics...been considering the ATACR 4-16x42 as well as the Kahles K318i...

I‘ve always wanted to try a Kahles but can’t find any good discounts on them.

 

[LSUbeatUby40]

I did not find that to be true. My pictures differences could be a change in cloud cover or my camera angle. I spent a week looking through both in many different lighting conditions and never saw a difference in the 2.

It might be but that's what I see in your pictures.

Also the reason you like the green better is because your eyes and brain react to it faster. There have been studies done on that and the data suggests the human eye reacts the fastest to the color green.

Just an off the wall fact I learned.

 

[thehun]

I always wanted to try S&B but none of the places that give me discounts offer them at great prices. Unfortunately, I only have NF, Vortex and Leupold.

Yeah your best bet to get a decent deal on SB is on the used market or demo units.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

It might be but that's what I see in your pictures.

Also the reason you like the green better is because your eyes and brain react to it faster. There have been studies done on that and the data suggests the human eye reacts the fastest to the color green.

Just an off the wall fact I learned.

Thanks, I’ll read up on that.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Yeah your best bet to get a decent deal on SB is on the used market or demo units.

I have come really close at times to doing just that but I’m always a little nervous spending that on anything used. I‘m sure I have lost out over the years. I have also sent several back to retailers for replacements because I could tell they had been used. I just picked up a new ACRO to try it and there was a fingerprint on the ocular lens.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

It might be but that's what I see in your pictures.

Also the reason you like the green better is because your eyes and brain react to it faster. There have been studies done on that and the data suggests the human eye reacts the fastest to the color green.

Just an off the wall fact I learned.

I was considering not posting the pictures for just that reason but I know people like pictures. To make a decision even harder is that the 50 was a little further under a covered area so it would stand to reason that it would have been even brighter if I had switched their positions. I just suggest trying to look through both at the same time before making a decision. Unfortunately, that option is not available to most people. I wish I had taken more pictures so the 42 would look better in one set and the 50 in another. Lesson learned.

 

[SRPowah]

I personally prefer, and own, the x42 but I am not sure if one would notice any difference at all outside of extreme low light situations. Even then, is the advantage worth it?

 

[sevensixtwo]

I have 2 of the 42mm with the H59 and only have good things to say. Exceptionally clear and bright and track awesome. Nice elevation turret as well. Short and sweet.

 

[stello1001]

Was there any testing or comparison done during nighttime with only ambient light? How about just a little before and after sunrise/sunset?

 

[loveha]

Assuming all else is the same, then it just comes down to turrets then? (And weight)
I was initially interested in the 42, but after looking at the videos comparing the turrets, I think I would prefer the ones on the 50 which has Zero Stop.
The 42 with Zero Hold is a little different and doesn't stop at 0 if I understood correctly. It let's you dial past 2 mils?

 

[Thorbeast]

The x42 does stop at zero. Everytime the turret lands on zero, it locks in place and then you have to press the button to move from zero. Unlike a traditional turret, the x42 can simply go past zero. I prefer it to traditional turrets.

 

[CBDR]

I‘ve always wanted to try a Kahles but can’t find any good discounts on them.

Quality is remembered after the price is forgotten. S&B, NF & Kahles all great optics based on the individuals application. I chased the objective size lens issue on light gathering ability also. I found nothing beats Swaro Z6.
Once again all top of the line optics.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Hi all,

This is probably dated but I was unable to find information 8 months ago when I needed to make a decision. I ended up buying both and sold the 50. My concern was light emission differences between the 42 and 50mm objective lenses.

I was certain the 50 would be brighter but was wrong (noticeably anyway). They were the same.

After looking through both, I could not tell the difference. There was a camera crew filming near my home and I asked if they could tell the difference. They were a little impatient with me but did take a moment to use some equipment to measure difference. In the short time I spoke with them ... I did not have the chance to inquire about or inspect the technology they used ... but the bottom line was that the difference would be very difficult for the naked eye to notice regardless of lighting conditions.

Seeing and hearing that I chose the 42. My reasoning was the lower profile due to the objective lens, shorter and wider elevation turret and the zero hold over the zero stop.

Hopes this helps someone trying to decide.

These pictures are the best comparisons I could get through a camera. Distance - 739 yards Leica 1600-B. If one looks darker, it is either the clouds or my photography skills with a smartphone.

Best, John

4-16x42

View attachment 7324588

4-16x50

View attachment 7324589

Did you have scope covers on the oculars when you took the pics? Good choice btw. Awesome turret design.

Thanks

 

[MeasuredResponse]

I personally prefer, and own, the x42 but I am not sure if one would notice any difference at all outside of extreme low light situations. Even then, is the advantage worth it?

For my purposes (762 AR) I felt it was. I just looked up the prices and think they may have gone down but I may be thinking of my atacr 1-8. I thought I remembered one of the 4-16’s being much more than a $100 price difference.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Was there any testing or comparison done during nighttime with only ambient light? How about just a little before and after sunrise/sunset?

Not at night but at dawn an dusk there was no difference. I did look through them at distant lights at night but not at the same time and did not take pictures. As I mentioned, I learned a lesson not doing that.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Assuming all else is the same, then it just comes down to turrets then? (And weight)
I was initially interested in the 42, but after looking at the videos comparing the turrets, I think I would prefer the ones on the 50 which has Zero Stop.
The 42 with Zero Hold is a little different and doesn't stop at 0 if I understood correctly. It let's you dial past 2 mils?

No, there is a button on the zero hold elevation turret. It does return to zero without pressing the button. You then press the button and it will go below. The way I see it is a zero stop with an additional option.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

The x42 does stop at zero. Everytime the turret lands on zero, it locks in place and then you have to press the button to move from zero. Unlike a traditional turret, the x42 can simply go past zero. I prefer it to traditional turrets.

What he said except my preference differs which is why I posted this. They are expensive so it nice to know what you are getting.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Quality is remembered after the price is forgotten. S&B, NF & Kahles all great optics based on the individuals application. I chased the objective size lens issue on light gathering ability also. I found nothing beats Swaro Z6.
Once again all top of the line optics.

I agree with everything said except when you have $x.xx and you can get 4 instead of 3 my choice was 4. Most of mine are NF and Vortex. I also have 2 Leupolds. Both early 2000’s that I don’t use much. Always have wanted to try the Mark V though. I was not including red dots in this. That would be a very different discussion.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Did you have scope covers on the oculars when you took the pics? Good choice btw. Awesome turret design.

Thanks

No, they were naked so to speak. Mounted on long rail pieces sitting on top of a box right next to each other.

 

[FatBoy]

My question would be had you gotten behind both while mounted and checked how quickly you can acquire a perfect sight picture? Traditional wisdom would say the 50mm will have a larger exit pupil and therefore a more forgiving head position, however since you had the ability to try both at 16x, did you find any noticable difference?

 

[MeasuredResponse]

My question would be had you gotten behind both while mounted and checked how quickly you can acquire a perfect sight picture? Traditional wisdom would say the 50mm will have a larger exit pupil and therefore a more forgiving head position, however since you had the ability to try both at 16x, did you find any noticable difference?

Field of view seemed identical to me. I just went back to look at the pictures and it confirmed it. I see no reason target acquisition time would be any different but I did not mount and test that. So I guess to answer your question, whether or not eye relief was more forgiving on one over the other ... I do not know. I only torqued to 5in/lbs because I wanted to be able to state that when I sold the 50. As far as parallax adjustments differences, I just dialed it in for the picture at distance. I did not check to see if it was same on both although that should not matter.

Hope that helps. John

 

[MeasuredResponse]

My question would be had you gotten behind both while mounted and checked how quickly you can acquire a perfect sight picture? Traditional wisdom would say the 50mm will have a larger exit pupil and therefore a more forgiving head position, however since you had the ability to try both at 16x, did you find any noticable difference?

That was a great question though, I did not think to check. I hate short and narrow eye relief.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

My question would be had you gotten behind both while mounted and checked how quickly you can acquire a perfect sight picture? Traditional wisdom would say the 50mm will have a larger exit pupil and therefore a more forgiving head position, however since you had the ability to try both at 16x, did you find any noticable difference?

The whole point of this thread was to help people make a decision on choosing one over the other so please don’t miss FatBoy‘s question that I quoted above. Had I checked and it was significantly better, I would have chosen the 50. But my money is already spent. Another lesson learned.

 

[FatBoy]

I asked as I am in the market for these scopes. I generally lean toward 32-44mm on field rifles. Glad you started this thread.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

I asked as I am in the market for these scopes. I generally lean toward 32-44mm on field rifles. Glad you started this thread.

I put in a call NF after my last post to see what they had to say. Unfortunately it won’t be my own observations. Covid has some of their employees working from home so I do not know when to expect a response.

 

[FatBoy]

Appreciate it, but its not a huge deal. The 42 is the way I'm leaning when I'm ready to pull the trigger. Gives me more mounting options IMO.

 

[B-P-UU]

These scopes are identical. Both require the same height rings.
I preferred the x42's turret design and overall smaller profile for hunting rigs.
The 42's parallax seemed slightly less finicky than the larger objective 50 as well..

I'd pick the turret you prefer and roll.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

Appreciate it, but its not a huge deal. The 42 is the way I'm leaning when I'm ready to pull the trigger. Gives me more mounting options IMO.

I do not know what you are putting it on or what mounts you prefer but mine is on a 762 AR and I got away with the Spuhr 4011 but without enough room for a defender lens cap so I changed to the 4026.

 

[MeasuredResponse]

These scopes are identical. Both require the same height rings.
I preferred the x42's turret design and overall smaller profile for hunting rigs.
The 42's parallax seemed slightly less finicky than the larger objective 50 as well..

I'd pick the turret you prefer and roll.

^^^^
Thats about it.

Thanks. I’m glad someone else that had been behind both chimed in. It would be hard to go too low on ring height with a 700 style bolt gun. On an AR platform, 30mm would be about perfect (to get as low as possible). In reference to my last post, the 4011 is 28 and the 4026 is 32.

That should close this out.

Best, John

 

[TacticalPlinker]

I'm considering the 4-16x50 MIL XT for a 20" bolt in 6.5 Creed . Would you guys recommend this magnification range / model for out to a thousand yards max on steel ?

 

[goatboy]

I just put a NX8 4-32 - 50 on a creed and it looks great. The thing about the 16 top end with the MIL XT is that the sweet spot for looking through the reticle is in the 12-22 range before eyebox and mirage make it hard. IMO the form factor on the 4-32 and the top end over 16 makes it a clear choice. In fairness the ATACR glass is optimized but I have a 4-16 x 42 ATACR and the 4-32 doesnt suffer other than being finicky on the top end which isnt suprising given the 30mm tube.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

I just put a NX8 4-32 - 50 on a creed and it looks great. The thing about the 16 top end with the MIL XT is that the sweet spot for looking through the reticle is in the 12-22 range before eyebox and mirage make it hard. IMO the form factor on the 4-32 and the top end over 16 makes it a clear choice. In fairness the ATACR glass is optimized but I have a 4-16 x 42 ATACR and the 4-32 doesnt suffer other than being finicky on the top end which isnt suprising given the 30mm tube.

So for comparison - at 16x on the ATACR and 22x on the NX8 - how do they stack up in relation to eye placement , edge to edge clarity , ext....?

 

[goatboy]

You're at the end of the erector at 16 on the 4-16 but it is very good considering the 42mm objective, I cant speak for the 50. On the 4-32 NX8, you're at the upper middle at 22 and its clear. No edge distortion to speak of and I can't see any CA (but maybe I just cant see that). I think the larger ATACR tube (34mm ) helps it succeed at the end of the erector whereas on the 4-32, the smaller tube doesnt present a problem at the upper mid-range.

I think some of the folks here with better understanding of optics can help clarify the issues here.

Because of the 30mm tube, the eyebox is tight but if the rifle is set up for your eye/cheek positioning, its kind of a non-issue. The tight eyebox issue is more getting behind someone elses gun that doesnt fit you or dynamically moving from bench to standing/kneeling to prone. I'd set it for prone where I have the best stability for longer range work.

Going to 32? I'm not sure i'll use that much if ever other than sighting in and "dot " shooting at 100-200 but I havent spent that much time behind the 4-32 at this point. BTW, I first chose the 2.5-20 but the ultrashort config didnt fit the rifle with low rings and the 4-32 is .5 oz heavier, an inch + longer and has different geometry so fit the low rings on a Barrett Fieldcraft

 

[SRPowah]

I'm considering the 4-16x50 MIL XT for a 20" bolt in 6.5 Creed . Would you guys recommend this magnification range / model for out to a thousand yards max on steel ?

I run a 4-16x42 on my rifle that has both a 6.5CM and .300PRC barrel. In other words, yes. The mag range is perfect as long as you aren't a magnification whore that has to see every detail of the target. I prefer 20x on the top end, but I am not hindered by 16x at all.

 

[stello1001]

These scopes are identical. Both require the same height rings.
I preferred the x42's turret design and overall smaller profile for hunting rigs.
The 42's parallax seemed slightly less finicky than the larger objective 50 as well..

I'd pick the turret you prefer and roll.

Sorry but let's not mislead anyone.

It's not just as simple as saying both require the same height rings. While I do agree that the x42 can work on rings used for the x50, it may not always work the other way around.

Imagine the rifle pictured below has the x42 version and look at the clearance there is.

Now imagine I wanted to switch from that scope to the x50. It would require different height rings...

 

[B-P-UU]

Sorry but let's not mislead anyone.

It's not just as simple as saying both require the same height rings. While I do agree that the x42 can work on rings used for the x50, it may not always work the other way around.

Imagine the rifle pictured below has the x42 version and look at the clearance there is.

View attachment 7339041

Now imagine I wanted to switch from that scope to the x50. It would require different height rings...

Not misleading anyone. Have them both and speak from experience with both.

There is more to mounting a scope than ring height. Turret housing will interfere with anything lower than .856" on these with a full pic rail.

 

[stello1001]

Not misleading anyone. Have them both and speak from experience with both.

There is more to mounting a scope than ring height. Turret housing will interfere with anything lower than .856" on these with a full pic rail.

View attachment 7339112

If you had a 1.250" straight barrel with the 4-16x50 scope, you might still need higher rings on it to clear whereas on the x42 you wouldn't.

Or having some low rings to barely have clearance with the x42 on a flat rail style gun like an AR. Then trying to mount the x50 on there because you upgraded, you'll end up up needing taller rings.


Nice rifles by the way!