Vortex RazorHD Gen III 6-36x56 vs NF ATACR 7-35x56

[nrspence]

Anyone compared these two scopes side by side, thoughts, differences?

 

[Covertnoob5]

Compared both. Review to come hopefully soon. Gen 3 is better. Especially getting it for under $2500 it's no contest. The 735 Atacr design is getting long in the tooth and at some point they need something new. 735 is still a good scope don't get me wrong but the gen 3 glass is better and especially at the value.

 

[longshot2000]

Compared both. Review to come hopefully soon. Gen 3 is better.735 is still a good scope don't get me wrong but the gen 3 glass is better

That is a bold statement. I would be interested in your comparisons. I have not been disappointed by either, but empirically, I can tell you we outsell NF over Razor by at least 8:1, and the buyers tell me that they appreciate the clarity of the image at extremely long distances.

Durability, the NF is the winner, and reticles are personal, but the Mil-XT and the Mil-C and R are very popular for a clean long-distance shot without holdovers. 6-36x is a great range, and the Razor and S&B both have good offerings. ZCO is also very good at extremely long distances.

I have always found that the lower the zoom factor - all things being equal - the less distortion. So, NF is 5x and Razor is 6x. I have been very impressed with the image of the Razor, but at that level or precision, there are so many factors, many of them personal, like the tactile feel of the turret, and click and the holdover of the reticle, that I would find it hard to declare one a winner over the other without more input from OP on how he intends to use it. Unlike some of the long-range Razors from 3 years ago, I have not seen the failures out of the box with the Razor as existed in the past, which is great. The 4.5-27 (as I recall), had a number of just bad out-of-the-box poor quality control, but the warranty fixed any problems.

Price is not that different for a great scope, and actual purchase prices on NF tend to be lower from MSRP than Razor, but much will depend upon availability at the time. When I mention price, what I am saying is you get to a point, where $2,400 or $2,800 is no big difference if you really like one scope over the other.

 

[Fret]

Here's ILya and Covertnoob5:

 

[Covertnoob5]

That is a bold statement. I would be interested in your comparisons. I have not been disappointed by either, but empirically, I can tell you we outsell NF over Razor by at least 8:1, and the buyers tell me that they appreciate the clarity of the image at extremely long distances.

Durability, the NF is the winner, and reticles are personal, but the Mil-XT and the Mil-C and R are very popular for a clean long-distance shot without holdovers. 6-36x is a great range, and the Razor and S&B both have good offerings. ZCO is also very good at extremely long distances.

I have always found that the lower the zoom factor - all things being equal - the less distortion. So, NF is 5x and Razor is 6x. I have been very impressed with the image of the Razor, but at that level or precision, there are so many factors, many of them personal, like the tactile feel of the turret, and click and the holdover of the reticle, that I would find it hard to declare one a winner over the other without more input from OP on how he intends to use it. Unlike some of the long-range Razors from 3 years ago, I have not seen the failures out of the box with the Razor as existed in the past, which is great. The 4.5-27 (as I recall), had a number of just bad out-of-the-box poor quality control, but the warranty fixed any problems.

Price is not that different for a great scope, and actual purchase prices on NF tend to be lower from MSRP than Razor, but much will depend upon availability at the time. When I mention price, what I am saying is you get to a point, where $2,400 or $2,800 is no big difference if you really like one scope over the other.

I can get some triggercam pics in the next few days but I think a 735 Atacr at $2800 is a really good price. Above $3k not so much. Especially in the $3500 range.
I do prefer the mil-xt over the vortex offerings but that's personal preference.

 

[Milf Dots]

Both are very good scopes and it comes down to personal preference. Nightforce does it for me and vortex doesn't. Buy what you like.

 

[nrspence]

That is a bold statement. I would be interested in your comparisons. I have not been disappointed by either, but empirically, I can tell you we outsell NF over Razor by at least 8:1, and the buyers tell me that they appreciate the clarity of the image at extremely long distances.

Durability, the NF is the winner, and reticles are personal, but the Mil-XT and the Mil-C and R are very popular for a clean long-distance shot without holdovers. 6-36x is a great range, and the Razor and S&B both have good offerings. ZCO is also very good at extremely long distances.

I have always found that the lower the zoom factor - all things being equal - the less distortion. So, NF is 5x and Razor is 6x. I have been very impressed with the image of the Razor, but at that level or precision, there are so many factors, many of them personal, like the tactile feel of the turret, and click and the holdover of the reticle, that I would find it hard to declare one a winner over the other without more input from OP on how he intends to use it. Unlike some of the long-range Razors from 3 years ago, I have not seen the failures out of the box with the Razor as existed in the past, which is great. The 4.5-27 (as I recall), had a number of just bad out-of-the-box poor quality control, but the warranty fixed any problems.

Price is not that different for a great scope, and actual purchase prices on NF tend to be lower from MSRP than Razor, but much will depend upon availability at the time. When I mention price, what I am saying is you get to a point, where $2,400 or $2,800 is no big difference if you really like one scope over the other.

Very good info, I had a NF 7-35x56 ATACR that I loved, I used the scope for PRS type shooting matches. I sold that scope to a buddy a few months back. I’m looking at ordering up another one, but wanted to hear peoples thoughts on that scope compared to the razor gen 3. A lower price is always welcome, but not at the sacrifice of quality or durability. I appreciate the input.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Very good info, I had a NF 7-35x56 ATACR that I loved, I used the scope for PRC type shooting matches. I sold that scope to a buddy a few months back. I’m looking at ordering up another one, but wanted to hear peoples thoughts on that scope compared to the razor gen 3. A lower price is always welcome, but not at the sacrifice of quality or durability. I appreciate the input.

I wouldn't say NF is any more durable than any other top tier scope. Despite what their marketing will tell you. They will all break if you're hard enough on the gear. I have no problem running either in any match over shot. And that's been a ton of matches in some fucked up conditions over the years.

Who remembers the video of the NF turret grease not holding up to cold weather? Turret stopped clicking.

I've seen a razor 3 windage come loose.

I broke a 416 atacr.

NF markets durability, and they've got a great marketing budget.

Quality they're equal. Period. Both in the tier 1 of scopes. Middle tier and low tier 1 but tier 1 nonetheless. Anyone that says different is definitely biased.

Pick a reticle you like and have vortex change the turrets to non locking. That's the winner to me. Better scope. Cheaper if you shop and newer design.

 

[hafejd30]

I own the atacr 7-35 and will say it’s a very nice optic and holds its own against my ZCO

I’ve owned NF NXS to ATACR. Every model atacr’s except the 5-25. Also owned a few vortex viper pst and some cheaper and will hands down at that price choose NF

Reliability is the most important thing to me when it comes to optics. Vortex has an excellent customer service (best I’ve seen) but unfortunately I had to use it several times.

 

[Glassaholic]

I would trust covertnoob, he knows his stuff, has great experience (actual field experience using his gear) and has an excellent track record of giving good advice on the Hide. So get out your review already . Ive been pondering a review of the G3 6-36 with a NF 7-35 for a while now but with a backlog of other gear to review just don't see that happening anytime soon.

I tend to agree that NF’s marketing is legendary when it comes to durability. They have numerous .mil contracts and stories of soldiers scopes still working with bullet holes, you can hammer spikes with them and shoot them while frozen solid in ice blocks, but could most of the other scopes in this class hold up as well? I would like to think so but their are no valid empirical tests to prove such and until that happens NF is likely to stay on top of the durability mound.

 

[Covertnoob5]

I would trust covertnoob, he knows his stuff, has great experience (actual field experience using his gear) and has an excellent track record of giving good advice on the Hide. So get out your review already . Ive been pondering a review of the G3 6-36 with a NF 7-35 for a while now but with a backlog of other gear to review just don't see that happening anytime soon.

I tend to agree that NF’s marketing is legendary when it comes to durability. They have numerous .mil contracts and stories of soldiers scopes still working with bullet holes, you can hammer spikes with them and shoot them while frozen solid in ice blocks, but could most of the other scopes in this class hold up as well? I would like to think so but their are no valid empirical tests to prove such and until that happens NF is likely to stay on top of the durability mound.

Lol I finished filming it but it's gonna be a lot of editing. I did 10 scopes.
TT525
Zco
735 atacr
636 razor
Kahles DLR
PMii 525
Revic PMR
Mk5
Razor 2
March 5-42

And match use triggercam footage for most so it's a lot.

Back on topic tho, I think the .mil spec aspect is a little overrated as far as "if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me" and those movie placements certainly don't hurt.
I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Quick findings off the top of my head, R3 the eyebox is great. Fantastic. Actually probably the best of any scope I've used.
FOV is huge (This brings up an interesting sub-conversaion about how accurate mag markings on scopes are in general) and based on TC stills that I have it's larger than TT. Which is obviously larger than an ATACR.
Big numbers at 10 mil per turn and a much more forgiving parallax than the ATACR.
Glass in certain aspects is subjective, but at the very least it's equal.
So all that for a lower price is why I say the R3 over ATACR.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Own both, used the Atacr for two years as my primary PRS scope. I had a few occasions where if the target was in shadow and grayed out from numerous impacts that it could become nearly impossible to see. That lead me on a hunt for a new optic...

Tried the 7-35 mk5 first but had some difficulty with a few of its characteristics and then moved on the the Gen 3 Razor and couldn't be happier. I haven't had any more problems finding shaded targets and I feel it is a bit more crisp of an image to my eyes. I absolutely love the one screw zero adjustment and the extra spacing between clicks and overall size of the turret markings work well with my 47 year old eyes while on the clock.

 

[DJL2]

Lol I finished filming it but it's gonna be a lot of editing. I did 10 scopes.
TT525
Zco
735 atacr
636 razor
Kahles DLR
PMii 525
Revic PMR
Mk5
Razor 2
March 5-42

And match use triggercam footage for most so it's a lot.

....

Tell us about the March... that's what the real connoisseurs wish to know ;-).

 

[Covertnoob5]

Tell us about the March... that's what the real connoisseurs wish to know ;-).

Lol that'll be a whole separate thread. I do really like a lot about it tho.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

That is a bold statement. I would be interested in your comparisons. I have not been disappointed by either, but empirically, I can tell you we outsell NF over Razor by at least 8:1, and the buyers tell me that they appreciate the clarity of the image at extremely long distances.

Durability, the NF is the winner, and reticles are personal, but the Mil-XT and the Mil-C and R are very popular for a clean long-distance shot without holdovers. 6-36x is a great range, and the Razor and S&B both have good offerings. ZCO is also very good at extremely long distances.

I have always found that the lower the zoom factor - all things being equal - the less distortion. So, NF is 5x and Razor is 6x. I have been very impressed with the image of the Razor, but at that level or precision, there are so many factors, many of them personal, like the tactile feel of the turret, and click and the holdover of the reticle, that I would find it hard to declare one a winner over the other without more input from OP on how he intends to use it. Unlike some of the long-range Razors from 3 years ago, I have not seen the failures out of the box with the Razor as existed in the past, which is great. The 4.5-27 (as I recall), had a number of just bad out-of-the-box poor quality control, but the warranty fixed any problems.

Price is not that different for a great scope, and actual purchase prices on NF tend to be lower from MSRP than Razor, but much will depend upon availability at the time. When I mention price, what I am saying is you get to a point, where $2,400 or $2,800 is no big difference if you really like one scope over the other.

Its a VERY true statement. I have owned just about every scope out there, and have buddies that still own them all. Have a ton of time behind them and the Gen 3 razor is a better optic than the ATACR 735.

NF reticles are dogshit, always have been and will be based on track record. You can't say its more durable, The razor is too new. Based on the Gen 2 razor, if its anything close, its right up there with ATACR. Terry Cross has said a few times the 3 most reliable scopes he sees in his classes are the Razor, ATACR and ZCO.

The rotating ocular of the 7-35 is enough to not even consider it, then add in shitty reticles, overpriced for what you get; Na dawg, you can get a better scope for almost half the price in the G3.

The G3 is so good, that I sold my ZCO's to move to them. It had more to do with reticle thickness, but you are not losing hardly anything in IQ , resolution, color and feel (turrets, parallax, ocular). The only real downgrade i have found so far is a tighter eyebox, but its hardly stopping anyone from winning matches.

I get mil prices for both, I know what dealer price is for both and see what they get sold for on promo. When you can get a Gen 3 razor for $1800, its a slam dunk, tank my money I want 4 right now kind of deal. You can get them sub 2k a few times a year or for $2100 if you get a EO cert which they basically give away at matches. G3 is promo price is still $1000 cheaper than at dealer price.

A normal Joe Blow can get a G3 razor for $1800. A normal Joe Blow may be able to get a demo NF735 for $3K and it will be one of the even shittier reticles than mil-xt. Its not even close.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I own the atacr 7-35 and will say it’s a very nice optic and holds its own against my ZCO

I’ve owned NF NXS to ATACR. Every model atacr’s except the 5-25. Also owned a few vortex viper pst and some cheaper and will hands down at that price choose NF

Reliability is the most important thing to me when it comes to optics. Vortex has an excellent customer service (best I’ve seen) but unfortunately I had to use it several times.

How many Gen 2 or Gen 3 razors have you warrantied? Stop comparing cheap garbage imports to premium offerings.

NF SF scopes are absolute dogshit, but no one is comparing them to ZCO's.

You are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[FuhQ]

Anyone compared these two scopes side by side, thoughts, differences?

The Zeiss LRP S3 6-36x56 has incredible glass. Better than my new NF ATACR F1 5-25x56. And it’s built like a tank, too.

Don’t overlook it.

 

[Fret]

Lol I finished filming it but it's gonna be a lot of editing. I did 10 scopes.
TT525
Zco
735 atacr
636 razor
Kahles DLR
PMii 525
Revic PMR
Mk5
Razor 2
March 5-42

And match use triggercam footage for most so it's a lot.

Back on topic tho, I think the .mil spec aspect is a little overrated as far as "if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me" and those movie placements certainly don't hurt.
I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Quick findings off the top of my head, R3 the eyebox is great. Fantastic. Actually probably the best of any scope I've used.
FOV is huge (This brings up an interesting sub-conversaion about how accurate mag markings on scopes are in general) and based on TC stills that I have it's larger than TT. Which is obviously larger than an ATACR.
Big numbers at 10 mil per turn and a much more forgiving parallax than the ATACR.
Glass in certain aspects is subjective, but at the very least it's equal.
So all that for a lower price is why I say the R3 over ATACR.

Just wondering if you had a chance to check out a Zeiss S3 to see how it stacks up in this group?

 

[Covertnoob5]

Just wondering if you had a chance to check out a Zeiss S3 to see how it stacks up in this group?

Ziess s3 is gonna be a tier 2 optic. Their tier 1 is gonna be the s5. That being said I'd love to review one at some point and it's definitely on the list. I just haven't had the time or opportunity yet.

 

[YotaEer]

Ziess s3 is gonna be a tier 2 optic. Their tier 1 is gonna be the s5. That being said I'd love to review one at some point and it's definitely on the list. I just haven't had the time or opportunity yet.

personally, I thought the S3's glass was equal to the Gen 3 Razor. Eye relief of the S3 was superior. Everything else the Gen 3 won. An excellent scope and nothing comes remotely close for around $2000ish.

I've been looking forward to your review/comparison of all these optics.

 

[R_A_W]

NF reticles are dogshit

I assume you're excluding the Mil-XT... The Mil-XT and the EBR-7C are two of the closest reticles on the market. I can't think of another reticle more similar to either. IMO the Mil-XT is superior, although having the XMas tree go down to 28 MRAD or whatever is kind of dumb.

Generally though, I can't disagree... I have an NXS in a closet with one of these

edit: also NF illum sucks, should have daytime bright & brightness adjustment is dumb

 

[nrspence]

I assume you're excluding the Mil-XT... The Mil-XT and the EBR-7C are two of the closest reticles on the market. I can't think of another reticle more similar to either. IMO the Mil-XT is superior, although having the XMas tree go down to 28 MRAD or whatever is kind of dumb.

Generally though, I can't disagree... I have an NXS in a closet with one of these

edit: also NF illum sucks, should have daytime bright & brightness adjustment is dumb

I love the Mil-XT reticle. I don’t see an advantage the EBR-7C has over the Mil-XT. Both are great reticles for hold overs with PRS type shooting.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I assume you're excluding the Mil-XT... The Mil-XT and the EBR-7C are two of the closest reticles on the market. I can't think of another reticle more similar to either. IMO the Mil-XT is superior, although having the XMas tree go down to 28 MRAD or whatever is kind of dumb.

Generally though, I can't disagree... I have an NXS in a closet with one of these

edit: also NF illum sucks, should have daytime bright & brightness adjustment is dumb

Uh no. The Mil XT is WAY busier with a bunch of wind dots and shit cluttered everywhere. Its almost as bad as a T3.

The EBR-7C is much cleaner, more of a traditional tree. Its also faster without your brain being overwhelmed with shit everywhere and trying to count hashes and dots.

Its dogshit. You need to get your eyes checked if you think they look alike.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I love the Mil-XT reticle. I don’t see an advantage the EBR-7C has over the Mil-XT. Both are great reticles for hold overs with PRS type shooting.

Wrong, which is why top PRS shooters are migrating to simplier reticles, with less clutter for faster adjustments and less shit in the way obscuring spotting your shot. Look at the JTAC for example.

 

[nrspence]

Wrong, which is why top PRS shooters are migrating to simplier reticles, with less clutter for faster adjustments and less shit in the way obscuring spotting your shot. Look at the JTAC for example.

Probably why I’m never a top ten finisher..

 

[rothgyr]

Yeah, MIL-XT is one of the best reticles I've used. As for driving spikes with an ATACR and it still tracking/holding zero, there are other manufacturers who've done the same on video, but NF fanbois are the real marketing power of NF. They'll find you, wake you up in the middle of the night and shout you to death about how reliable NF is, lol.

 

[R_A_W]

The Mil XT is WAY busier with a bunch of wind dots and shit cluttered everywhere.

clearly you’re thinking of a different reticle

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

clearly you’re thinking of a different reticle

Since you seem a bit slow on the uptake.

Here is the Mil-XT:

Here is the EBR-7C:

If you cannot tell the difference between these, not to mention the retarded flipping .2 hash marks on the Mil XT that slow you down trying to figure out where the hell you are for holder overs and wind holds, I dont know what to tell you. The Vortex reticle is significantly cleaner.

 

[Glassaholic]

Yeah, MIL-XT is one of the best reticles I've used. As for driving spikes with an ATACR and it still tracking/holding zero, there are other manufacturers who've done the same on video, but NF fanbois are the real marketing power of NF. They'll find you, wake you up in the middle of the night and shout you to death about how reliable NF is, lol.

They might even beat you with their NF then make you mount it and shoot it to prove it holds zero

I’d pay good money to see two guys, one pulls off ATACR, the other pulls off a Razor G3 and they go at it like a Jedi and Sith lord for about twenty seconds with their scopes, then remount and shoot, no edits or cuts…

 

[Sako man]

I have had both. The Razor G3 is the way to go VS the NF, not even a question. The G3 has better glass, second rev indicator, better turrets. Much better parallax adjustment.

 

[DJL2]

Hey, what did the PRS world champ shoot?

Now that I’ve stirred a bit, I’ll see myself out…

 

[3rdfocal]

I owned both at the same time for quite a while. Absolutely prefer the G3 Razor.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Mil-xt, always found myself lost in the .2 staggered holds and the .5 dots in space cluttered up the view and felt a little to much like my Horus, IMO. I really love the Leupold PR-2 and if I could get that in my G3 Razor that would be my perfect optic... that said the EBR-7D is quicker for me on the clock and preferred over my Mil-xt. But reticle design is very user subjective.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I was actually wrong, Something looked off on the vortex reticle so went back. It actually uses the EBR-7D, which is even CLEANER than the 7C. Here it is:

 

[R_A_W]

Yeah I originally said 7C as well but meant & linked the 7D... I've never used a 7C I take that back, I've used a 7C a handful of times, but it looks dumb compared to the 7D

Tract Toric actually has a reticle that's actually a hybrid of the Mil-XT and EBR-7D. Even though it's closer to the EBR-7D, the Tract Toric ELR reticle is more similar to both the Mil-XT and the EBR-7D than either is to one another.

 

[rothgyr]

[...] not to mention the retarded flipping .2 hash marks on the Mil XT that slow you down trying to figure out where the hell you are for holder overs and wind holds

I like the MIL-XT because of the flipping hashes. I swapped out my Athlon, Maven, Vortex, K525i, and M7XI, because it was hard for my eyes to pick out the difference between the .6 and .8 in a split second. It's obvious to me what the difference is with the flipped hashes. If mark is next to a MIL mark, it's .8 or .2. For reading fast, MIL-C/XT, SCR2-1/4, PR2, and JVCR all work amazingly for my eyes.

That said, EBR-7D is very clean. The 1/2 mark makes it easy to use with similar logic - left side of .5 is .4, right side .6. The 7D is a major step up from the 7C for getting out of the way without rethinking the whole reticle.

 

[carbonbased]

Hey, what did the PRS world champ shoot?

Now that I’ve stirred a bit, I’ll see myself out…

Lol! I figured I’d goof off a bit.

Taken from the Open series on 9/15/23 here:

Precision Rifle Series - Home

The Precision Rifle Series is the preeminent rifle organization in the world, structuring a yearly points race for both the PRS Pro Bolt Gun Series and the PRS Regional Series. The PRS Championship Shooting Series is synonymous with precision rifle shooting.

www.precisionrifleseries.com

1. NF 7-35
2. Leupy 5-25 MK5
3. TT 5-25
4. TT 5-25
5. Leupy 5-25 MK5
6. Vortex 6-36
7. TT 5-25
8. Leupy 5-25 MK5
9. Vortex 6-36
10. NF 7-35
11. US Optics B-25 5-25x52
12. n/a
13. Vortex 4.5-27 (GigaChad lol. Ok that’s my scope)
14. Leupy 5-25 MK5
15. TT 5-25
16. NF 7-35
17. Leupy 5-25 MK5
18. n/a, but pic has a Kahles
19. Vortex 4.5-27 (GigaChadette)
20. Leupy 5-25 MK5

Totals, top 20:
6 Leupy 5-25 MK5
4 TT 5-25
3 NF 7-35
2 Vortex 4.5-27
2 Vortex 6-36
1 Kahles (probably)
1 US Optics B-25 5-25x52
1 Unknown

Totals, top 10:
3 Leupy 5-25 MK5
3 TT 5-25
2 NF 7-35
2 Vortex 6-36

Questions:
Why aren’t the Leupold shooters using the 7-35?

Analysis:
To be a GigaChad you use a Vortex 4.5-27.

Seriously:
Obviously, scope choice doesn’t mean poop (but obv Tasco-level optics not advised). And re: sponsorship.

And EBR-2c Master Race

==========================
For future tribesmen who visit this page, I’ve screenshotted the top 20 Open class PRS folks below. I was too lazy to copy/paste their names in my list.

 

[R_A_W]

Why aren’t the Leupold shooters using the 7-35

IIRC the 5-25 Mk5 is supposed to be a better scope than the 7-35 Mk5 and 25x is more than you need (I've only used the 5-25)

If that many shooters are doing well with either a PR2 or T3 in the 525 Mk 5, then it is possible to use basically any Xmas tree reticle on the market & do well

I like the MIL-XT because of the flipping hashes.

Same. But I also like the EBR-7D too. This is a diagram that may help some people use the Mil-XT more easily:

 

[Sako man]

The MK5 with PR2 reticle is a good optic, so this makes a lot of sense. To me it's the best optic that leupold has come up with to date, I have owned a few of their duds however. But the MK5 was fresh in it's design and seemingly well built. A sign leupold decided to listen to its customers. The optical design is very good and only suffers slightly in the glass department. In image quality the NF and G3 have it beat.

All this said it's really amazing how good optics have gotten over the past ten years. In terms of price and performance pretty much any of the top offerings from even Burris or Athlon would be super competitive if you could take them back ten years ago in a time machine.

I remember more then twenty years ago when pretty much the only offerings were the super sniper and the MK4 with those wacky turrets.

It's a great time to be a gear monger.

 

[rothgyr]

Meanwhile, in MK5 land:

 

[Glassaholic]

IIRC the 5-25 Mk5 is supposed to be a better scope than the 7-35 Mk5 and 25x is more than you need (I've only used the 5-25)

If that many shooters are doing well with either a PR2 or T3 in the 525 Mk 5, then it is possible to use basically any Xmas tree reticle on the market & do well


Same. But I also like the EBR-7D too. This is a diagram that may help some people use the Mil-XT more easily:

View attachment 8227891

One could ask the question: Nightforce has a 5-25 and 7-35 but there are no 5-25's used among the top shooters and likewise Leupold has both 5-25 and 7-35 scopes yet none of the top shooters use the 7-35, why is that?

I believe this tells us more about the performance of the scope optically verses the magnification range. Since Nightforce introduced the ATACR 7-35 (around 2018 IIRC) it quickly became the preferred scope of choice among ATACR owners, not so much because of its magnification range, but because the consensus was that it performed better than the 5-25 optically speaking. Likewise with the Leupold, it appears the consensus is that the 5-25 outperforms the 7-35 optically. But because of the popularity of the NF 7-35 in competition circles, the industry thought that the market was demanding higher magnification scopes, but I think the desire for the NF 7-35 had more to do with its optical performance than it did with the mag range over the 5-25 and I think the PRS results reflect that. I know a number of ELR shooters who've been shooting with the TT 5-25 and when asked if they plan to switch to the TT 7-35 the consensus has been a resounding no, these seasoned shooters know that higher magnification becomes more of a detriment as distance increases (because you're also increasing atmospheric distortion), so for a shooter who rarely goes above 16x to begin with doesn't see much benefit of having 35x at the top vs. 25x. Rimfire shooting or known distance paper shooting may be a different story, but if your Goldilocks zone is between 12x-20x then the need for greater than 25x just can't be justified for a lot of shooters. Now, if the TT 7-35 ends up being considerably better optically vs. the 5-25, or has better eyebox (it actually has narrower FOV) or better flare control and features like that, then I can see some shooters switching out, but it likely won't be for the magnification range but for better performance within the primary range they use.

Back to the original question, both the ATACR 7-35 and RG3 6-36 are excellent scopes and I don't think you can go wrong with either. The RG3 is a newer design and as such has some features that I believe give it a benefit over the ATACR (like wider FOV and more forgiving eyebox) but for some the turrets and reticle are going to weigh more strongly in the decision which is usually why I typically say, "at this level, choose the reticle you like the most" and that certainly applies here.

 

[Sako man]

One could ask the question: Nightforce has a 5-25 and 7-35 but there are no 5-25's used among the top shooters and likewise Leupold has both 5-25 and 7-35 scopes yet none of the top shooters use the 7-35, why is that?

I believe this tells us more about the performance of the scope optically verses the magnification range. Since Nightforce introduced the ATACR 7-35 (around 2018 IIRC) it quickly became the preferred scope of choice among ATACR owners, not so much because of its magnification range, but because the consensus was that it performed better than the 5-25 optically speaking. Likewise with the Leupold, it appears the consensus is that the 5-25 outperforms the 7-35 optically. But because of the popularity of the NF 7-35 in competition circles, the industry thought that the market was demanding higher magnification scopes, but I think the desire for the NF 7-35 had more to do with its optical performance than it did with the mag range over the 5-25 and I think the PRS results reflect that. I know a number of ELR shooters who've been shooting with the TT 5-25 and when asked if they plan to switch to the TT 7-35 the consensus has been a resounding no, these seasoned shooters know that higher magnification becomes more of a detriment as distance increases (because you're also increasing atmospheric distortion), so for a shooter who rarely goes above 16x to begin with doesn't see much benefit of having 35x at the top vs. 25x. Rimfire shooting or known distance paper shooting may be a different story, but if your Goldilocks zone is between 12x-20x then the need for greater than 25x just can't be justified for a lot of shooters. Now, if the TT 7-35 ends up being considerably better optically vs. the 5-25, or has better eyebox (it actually has narrower FOV) or better flare control and features like that, then I can see some shooters switching out, but it likely won't be for the magnification range but for better performance within the primary range they use.

Back to the original question, both the ATACR 7-35 and RG3 6-36 are excellent scopes and I don't think you can go wrong with either. The RG3 is a newer design and as such has some features that I believe give it a benefit over the ATACR (like wider FOV and more forgiving eyebox) but for some the turrets and reticle are going to weigh more strongly in the decision which is usually why I typically say, "at this level, choose the reticle you like the most" and that certainly applies here.

Agreed. Personally and anecdotally I have never been able to utilize over 30x mag. As well 20x seems to be a sweet spot for me. In the ELR game I'd think elevation trumps magnification.

 

[carbonbased]

I see, I had mistakenly thought that the Leupy 7-35 was considered better than its 5-25 counterpart (like the NF).

Wrong, I was. Ashamed, am I.

I had a 5-25 Mark 5 with that CCH reticle early in my scope “career” and wow, I hated that thing. Not sure if it was just the reticle or if I would’ve hated the scope’s raw optical ability too, but I couldn’t separate the hate. The CCH was so overpowering with all of its effing-heimer lines, dashes, V’s, and whatnot.

Loved the turret’s locking method and that matte finish, however.

The PR2 is has a faint-ish echo of that blasted CCH, so no-go for me.

I think the OP should choose the reticle he likes between his two contenders. If that’s a wash, then here are some differentiators between them: Does he like locking turrets? What about the color? How about the way the mag ring works? How about the illumination controls?

That’s how I would decide if I couldn’t first get behind each scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

Agreed. Personally and anecdotally I have never been able to utilize over 30x mag. As well 20x seems to be a sweet spot for me. In the ELR game I'd think elevation trumps magnification.

For real ELR (greater than 1.5 miles) elevation is not as important as most will be using a Charlie Tarac, so even though many might consider the 28 mrad limit of the TT to be a hindrance, because of the CT it's not that big of a deal. One of these days I'd love to get my hands on a March Genesis 6-60x56 as I hear this has excellent optics and extreme elevation without distortion of the optical path. But for most modern cartridges and PRS distances, even 28 mrad gets out well past 1500 yards...

 

[R_A_W]

Agree 100%

If the 525 ATACR had the same image quality as the 735 ATACR, you’d see more of the 525 than the 735

 

[carbonbased]

Agreed. Personally and anecdotally I have never been able to utilize over 30x mag. As well 20x seems to be a sweet spot for me.

I too like 18-20x most of the time when shooting prairie dogs. However, not everyone shoots ELR or PRS.

Sometimes I crank my Vortex 4.5-27 to 27x and I wish it could go further. Those little bastards can be small, especially when they are “prone” and facing towards or away from me.

Ditto for Richardson’s ground squirrels.

As a practical matter (eye centering) I am guessing 36x would be about the max I could handle in the field. Once I looked peered through a Sightron 50x benchrest scope and WOW it was fussy starting at 40x-ish. Unusable at 50x (for me).

I know it wasn’t in the league of champions like the scopes we are talking about here.

Generally, I am imagining that the eye centering thing tends to be a function of the laws of optical design, where the higher the mag, the fussier the eye centering must be (barring some new construction method).

 

[nrspence]

One could ask the question: Nightforce has a 5-25 and 7-35 but there are no 5-25's used among the top shooters and likewise Leupold has both 5-25 and 7-35 scopes yet none of the top shooters use the 7-35, why is that?

I believe this tells us more about the performance of the scope optically verses the magnification range. Since Nightforce introduced the ATACR 7-35 (around 2018 IIRC) it quickly became the preferred scope of choice among ATACR owners, not so much because of its magnification range, but because the consensus was that it performed better than the 5-25 optically speaking. Likewise with the Leupold, it appears the consensus is that the 5-25 outperforms the 7-35 optically. But because of the popularity of the NF 7-35 in competition circles, the industry thought that the market was demanding higher magnification scopes, but I think the desire for the NF 7-35 had more to do with its optical performance than it did with the mag range over the 5-25 and I think the PRS results reflect that. I know a number of ELR shooters who've been shooting with the TT 5-25 and when asked if they plan to switch to the TT 7-35 the consensus has been a resounding no, these seasoned shooters know that higher magnification becomes more of a detriment as distance increases (because you're also increasing atmospheric distortion), so for a shooter who rarely goes above 16x to begin with doesn't see much benefit of having 35x at the top vs. 25x. Rimfire shooting or known distance paper shooting may be a different story, but if your Goldilocks zone is between 12x-20x then the need for greater than 25x just can't be justified for a lot of shooters. Now, if the TT 7-35 ends up being considerably better optically vs. the 5-25, or has better eyebox (it actually has narrower FOV) or better flare control and features like that, then I can see some shooters switching out, but it likely won't be for the magnification range but for better performance within the primary range they use.

Back to the original question, both the ATACR 7-35 and RG3 6-36 are excellent scopes and I don't think you can go wrong with either. The RG3 is a newer design and as such has some features that I believe give it a benefit over the ATACR (like wider FOV and more forgiving eyebox) but for some the turrets and reticle are going to weigh more strongly in the decision which is usually why I typically say, "at this level, choose the reticle you like the most" and that certainly applies here.

Most of the NF 7-35 users I’ve ran into at matches claim that they go with that scope over the 5-25 because it performs best at 14-17 power. Would that be specific to that scope or would the vortex G3 be similar?

 

[Glassaholic]

Most of the NF 7-35 users I’ve ran into at matches claim that they go with that scope over the 5-25 because it performs best at 14-17 power. Would that be specific to that scope or would the vortex G3 be similar?

Every scope has their sweet spot or Goldilocks zone, this is often somewhere in mid range of the magnification, so a 5-25 may have a sweet spot of 10-20 for example. This is why I try to do line resolution tests at different mag settings throughout to get an idea if any given scope struggles at a particular spot within the magnification extremes. The Vortex RG3 6-36 is one of those scopes that surprised me with excellent characteristics throughout the mag range, this is surprising given this scope uses a wide angle eyepiece, so not only do you get impressive performance throughout but also FOV is wider than most, so at any given magnification you'll be able to see more especially since the RG3 has impressive edge to edge sharpness. I have no reason to doubt the NF 7-35 does better in the 14-17 range, but based on those I've known to own this scope I'd venture to say it's an even greater range than that, in general I believe the ATACR 5-25 is known to be somewhat soft optically. I've been trying to source a NF ATACR 7-35 for a comparison with the RG3 specifically but haven't found a willing donor yet

 

[TangoSierra916]

Every scope has their sweet spot or Goldilocks zone, this is often somewhere in mid range of the magnification, so a 5-25 may have a sweet spot of 10-20 for example. This is why I try to do line resolution tests at different mag settings throughout to get an idea if any given scope struggles at a particular spot within the magnification extremes. The Vortex RG3 6-36 is one of those scopes that surprised me with excellent characteristics throughout the mag range, this is surprising given this scope uses a wide angle eyepiece, so not only do you get impressive performance throughout but also FOV is wider than most, so at any given magnification you'll be able to see more especially since the RG3 has impressive edge to edge sharpness. I have no reason to doubt the NF 7-35 does better in the 14-17 range, but based on those I've known to own this scope I'd venture to say it's an even greater range than that, in general I believe the ATACR 5-25 is known to be somewhat soft optically. I've been trying to source a NF ATACR 7-35 for a comparison with the RG3 specifically but haven't found a willing donor yet

Tell me where to send a 7-35, just know going into the review, you can’t keep it when you fall in love with it. . Don’t be surprised if you’re saying Tangent Theta who after the review.

I think we need a “Hide durability test” too.

Not sure if other scope manufacturers/owners would sacrifice an optic but I think we need a durability test with videos to show who’s the most durable (out of the test sample size of course, I can hear excuses already lol). I think the NF durability tests are legit, can’t speak to the science/physics behind them but I am yet to see any other manufacturer do a single durability video.

 

[rothgyr]

but I am yet to see any other manufacturer do a single durability video.

They exist, but no one shares them unless the brand being showcased is NF. Echo chambers are a heck of a drug.