Rifle Scopes Vortex AMG VS Nightforce ATACR

[sprink21]

I need opinions on how the two compare. I own a AMG in MOA but keep playing with the idea of selling/trading for a ATACR. The 4-16x42 ATACR in particular keeps getting my attention. I only have access to the NXS line to compare and haven’t even seen a ATACR in person yet. I would be hunting (100-400yds) and target shooting (100-1200yds) with most shots being between 100-600yds. It’s going on a bolt action 6.5 Creedmoor if that makes any difference.

 

[longshot2000]

I have said it before here, there lots of opinions, and personal bias. I think the big question you should ask is: What are you looking for, what do you intend to achieve in trading your Vortex for a NightForce? They are both good scopes. The ATACR is a better scope than the NXS, and the NXS is pretty darn good. You did not indicate the magnification of your AMG. A similar AMG, I would think, would perform as well, or almost as well as the ATACR for the uses you list and the distances. The ATACR has a lot built into it for the hardiness of a combat zone, and you will be paying for that. It sounds like you might not need that extra hardiness. Keep that in-mind.

 

[TheOE800]

I find the draw to the 4-16x F1 ATACR it’s size, which isn’t a real concern to me on a bolt gun. I run it on my 20” AR for that reason as a replacement for a previous NXS Compact. The glass is good (better than NXS definitely) though I haven’t checked tracking, and the knobs I would say are okay. Well spaced between clicks with decent resistance, though I find the zeroing a PITA and had some knob slippage recently so I need to go out and verify. Could have been user error, but it left me with a dull feeling for a $2K+ optic.

The AMG is lighter than the baby ATACR, has a good reticle in the current production EBR-7B, and has a vastly superior zeroing system IMO. I find the AMG priced right and the ATACR expensive for what it is. I found the turrets to be good, though the knobs on the small side and the locking feature didn’t do anything for me. The AMG also has more adjustment than the 4-16x ATACR.

I don’t own an AMG anymore (mine were earlier production) though I might pick up another one to put on my Nucleus when I decide what exactly I want to do with it. I will probably not own another ATACR despite my desire to love Nightforce.

 

[Bender]

The ATACR I played with tunneled at 5-7 if I remember, that was my only tiny flaw I could find in the short time I messed with it. I is a very nice scope! Waaay out of my budget.

 

[Basher]

You did not indicate the magnification of your AMG.

At present, the AMG only comes in one mag range, 6-24x (excluding the UH-1, of course).

 

[TheOE800]

At present, the AMG only comes in one mag range, 6-24x (excluding the UH-1, of course).

Which is a real shame.

 

[Diver160651]

I really wanted to love the ATACR.. while a nice scope it was not the end all of all scopes I have been behind. At least to my eyes.. behind my F1

 

[sprink21]

I do like the AMG but it is the first “high dollar” scope that I’ve ever purchased so part of me feels like I’m missing out on something. The only other scope I’ve been able to play with that I think compares to the AMG was a Kahles that someone had at the range. Like OE800 said the compact size of the 4-16 ATACR is what really draws me to it.

 

[Basher]

Which is a real shame.

I completely agree. A midrange AMG would be freaking amazing!

 

[Dthomas3523]

Does the ATACR have a reticle that you feel like you'd prefer over your AMG? Considering they are going to be close in clarity and mechanics, you should be making most of your decision on reticle choice. And if neither of them have a reticle that draws you to it, you should be looking at something else within that range of quality.

 

[TheOE800]

Unless you want a Horus reticle, the Nightforce catalog doesn’t really have much in it. Mil-C is decent (what I have in my ATACR), but that’s it.

 

[pineoak]

Keep the AMG (I owned one previously, but my G2R met my needs better so I let it go)

Each scope has pros/cons

Unless you can definitively define clearly why the ATACR is a better choice, stick with the awesome optic you already have

IF you decide to get a new scope, buy it first and sell the one you like less after doing a straight side by side comparison

NF ATACR is a somewhat lateral move, some might argue a slight step down

Ultimately it's what you want out of a scope

(I prefer the EBR7 to the Mil-C which is the nicest reticle NF has IMO, I'm not a Horus fan as they're etched for specific loads)

Don't sell the AMG to fund the ATACR

 

[blbennett1288]

I completely agree. A midrange AMG would be freaking amazing!

There have been hints there will be one in 2019. A 4-16 or 4.5-18 would be amazing.

I really wanted to love the ATACR.. while a nice scope it was not the end all of all scopes I have been behind. At least to my eyes.. behind my F1

I completely agree. At the ATACR's price point there are other options I would rather purchase and use. I just wasn't wowed by anything about it. Granted I havnt looked through the 7-35 version, just the 5-25.

 

[Geno C.]

I'm beginning to wonder if there is something wrong with my AMG. The ATACR blows mine away in terms of clarity

 

[Kenjohnc]

I'm beginning to wonder if there is something wrong with my AMG. The ATACR blows mine away in terms of clarity

I started to question myself too I have 4 ATACR's and have plenty of time behind and AMG and they aren't even close

 

[Dthomas3523]

And that is why individuals looking through glass is so subjective. For every person that prefers one over the other, there’s and equal amount with the opposite experience.

 

[koshkin]

With the ones I have seen, I think AMG and ATACR F1 are pretty close in terms of optics, with a slight edge going to the AMG.

However, you have to keep in mind that when looking at optics, there is no ATACR F1 model directly equivalent to the AMG. I sort them by objective diameter first and ATACR F1 comes with 42mm and 56mm objectives, while AMG has a 50mm objective.

Both are good scopes, but AMG will outperform the 4-16x42 ATACR optically and be a touch lighter. It is, however, a lot longer and, of course, has a different mag range. In terms of performance and usage, AMG competes against the larger ATACR F1 5-25x56 and Razor Gen 2 4.7-27x56 a bit more directly, offering a lighter weight option.

ILya

 

[g3ninfinite]

Is the AMG still all made in the US? Also I’m seeing the mil reticle with a dot and plex center. Which is most current?

 

[koshkin]

Other than the reticle, AMG is made in the US.

I think the small floating dot is the most current.

ILya

 

[TheOE800]

Floating dot is EBR-7B. It launched with a floating crosshair reticle dubbed EBR-7.

 

[predator308]

individuals looking through glass is so subjective your AMG would perform at the conditions you stated up there. you wanting the ATCAR might be due to human want and consumer behavior if you would be happier feeling you have an ATACR yeah go ahead and get it.

 

[sprink21]

Thanks for the help everyone. After all the points that were made I think I’m going to hold on to the AMG or try to trade for a Mil model. If I still think I want/need a ATACR I’ll buy one so I can compare each side by side before selling the AMG like was suggested above.

 

[rocklinux]

I'd sell the AMG for an ATACR.

 

[B-P-UU]

I have both and honesty would have a hard time parting with either. They are different animals though.. I think the ATACR is just about perfect for a hunting scope and steel banger. I've got an AMG on my match rifle, but with the sub-30 oz package, would work on a LR hunting rig as well.

 

[sprink21]

I have both and honesty would have a hard time parting with either. They are different animals though.. I think the ATACR is just about perfect for a hunting scope and steel banger. I've got an AMG on my match rifle, but with the sub-30 oz package, would work on a LR hunting rig as well.

Do you have the 5-25 or 4-16 ATACR? How does the eye box on the two compare, is one noticeably easier to get behind in your opinion?

 

[B-P-UU]

4-16. Both are great at 16x which is about as close to apples-to-apples comparison as one can make with these. The 4-16 doesn't feel tight at all at max power where some scopes do when maxed out

 

[bigjake83]

I need opinions on how the two compare. I own a AMG in MOA but keep playing with the idea of selling/trading for a ATACR. The 4-16x42 ATACR in particular keeps getting my attention. I only have access to the NXS line to compare and haven’t even seen a ATACR in person yet. I would be hunting (100-400yds) and target shooting (100-1200yds) with most shots being between 100-600yds. It’s going on a bolt action 6.5 Creedmoor if that makes any difference.

For what you're using the scope for you have the best you can ask for. You are not going to gain anything with the ATACR.

 

[lclement]

I already own a gen 2 4.5-27 and a 1-6 JM1 but I’ve been eyeing the AMG for awhile and always thought it would make a great PRS match scope AND a nice light weight optic for an elk rifle. Definitely a double duty optic.

I went to Brownells and I did a side by side of the Vortex AMG 6-24, night force 5-25 AtacR, Burris 5-25 XTR II. And even a Nikon FX1000 Day was an overcast and slightly hazy. Not bright out at all. Not even close to a blue bird day and I was kinda glad bc thise would reduce the ambient light making scopes work harder. My eyes are still as good as they have been but 40 years of age is nearing ?

Night force $3400 glass good, parallax was easy to move, clicks felt good, eye relief good, this glass set the bar high on all fronts as expected.

AMG $2500 glass was on par with Nightforce. AMG has a 50mm objective not a 56mm like the NF so I did notice just a slight dimming when past 21 mag but very very little. Not enough to matter much to me. Still held its own to the night force ATacR. Clicks felt good to me, parallax was stiff but this was a new scope out of the box, NF was on the shelf I assume it’s been broke in far more. I like the reticle also and the .2 sub-tensions. The AMG felt well built, sturdy and light.

Burris at $1300 I really wanted to like this scope but the glass seemed hazy compared to AMG and NF This was a turn off... turrets didn’t feel too bad, parallax was fine. But I can’t get over the glass after using a gen 2 at PRS matches. I was disappointed in the Burris glass. Did not care for that reticle. Perhaps this was a lemon however. I see lots of Burris glass at matches and guys shoot well with them.

I also looked at Nikon FX1000 $800. Glass was good, very close to the AMG and NF which was surprising at an $800 price point. Well done Nikon. BUT the elevation turret felt substandard and that make me very cautious. If Nikon improved turret clicks they have great mid-level optic. Online tracking tests suggest the Nikon tracking is accurate however. I like the reticle as it had .2 sub tensions like the amg BUT does not come with a chrismas tree style reticle and im used to the ERB-2C. This might be worth taking a chance on. Brownells has an excellent return policy.

It was a great side by side done on the same day in the same Light conditions. It was Eye opening

 

[patriot07]

I already own a gen 2 4.5-27 and a 1-6 JM1 but I’ve been eyeing the AMG for awhile and always thought it would make a great PRS match scope AND a nice light weight optic for an elk rifle. Definitely a double duty optic.

I went to Brownells and I did a side by side of the Vortex AMG 6-24, night force 5-25 AtacR, Burris 5-25 XTR II. And even a Nikon FX1000 Day was an overcast and slightly hazy. Not bright out at all. Not even close to a blue bird day and I was kinda glad bc thise would reduce the ambient light making scopes work harder. My eyes are still as good as they have been but 40 years of age is nearing ?

Night force $3400 glass good, parallax was easy to move, clicks felt good, eye relief good, this glass set the bar high on all fronts as expected.

AMG $2500 glass was on par with Nightforce. AMG has a 50mm objective not a 56mm like the NF so I did notice just a slight dimming when past 21 mag but very very little. Not enough to matter much to me. Still held its own to the night force ATacR. Clicks felt good to me, parallax was stiff but this was a new scope out of the box, NF was on the shelf I assume it’s been broke in far more. I like the reticle also and the .2 sub-tensions. The AMG felt well built, sturdy and light.

Burris at $1300 I really wanted to like this scope but the glass seemed hazy compared to AMG and NF This was a turn off... turrets didn’t feel too bad, parallax was fine. But I can’t get over the glass after using a gen 2 at PRS matches. I was disappointed in the Burris glass. Did not care for that reticle. Perhaps this was a lemon however. I see lots of Burris glass at matches and guys shoot well with them.

I also looked at Nikon FX1000 $800. Glass was good, very close to the AMG and NF which was surprising at an $800 price point. Well done Nikon. BUT the elevation turret felt substandard and that make me very cautious. If Nikon improved turret clicks they have great mid-level optic. Online tracking tests suggest the Nikon tracking is accurate however. I like the reticle as it had .2 sub tensions like the amg BUT does not come with a chrismas tree style reticle and im used to the ERB-2C. This might be worth taking a chance on. Brownells has an excellent return policy.

It was a great side by side done on the same day in the same Light conditions. It was Eye opening

This has largely been my impression. AMG holds its own with the ATACR from a resolution standpoint but does lose brightness at high mag and I think the ATACR has a bit more contrast. XTR II is underwhelming compared to most modern optics. Nikon's new lineup out-shines its price point, but is a long ways away from the AMG or ATACR IMHO, and the turrets are underwhelming. But a reliable scope with decent optics at that price point is hard to come by, and they've accomplished that in spades.