Rifle Scopes XRS ii vs 7x35 ATACR

[plinkin]

I'm looking to upgrade my scope in the near future, currently I have a gen 1 dmr g2 which has been great for me. I mostly punch paper and steel from time to time.


I'm really wanting a bit more magnification as well as a zero stop and 10 mil (at least) turrets. I had a gen 2 razor back a yr ago, I liked it no complaints only reason I sold it was I needed the funds and knew I could get a decent optic with what was available with bushnel for less than half the price of a used razor.



So I'm looking at the 2 scopes listed above. Anyone have experience with both? Is the Nightforce worth 2 times as much? Or should I just pick up a used Razor? Thoughts? Thanks.

 

[morganlamprecht]

if cost is a concern, a used gen 2 razor is hard to beat...prolly in the $1500 range now

i wouldnt compare the xrs2 to the atacr...only ones who will make that comparison are emotionally invested in the bushnell

a few months ago i posted an xrs2 for sale, for like $1200 or $1300...it sat for a week or 2 and i finally sold it for $1k i think...a gen 2 or atacr wouldnt last a day at that price...so you can probably find an xrs2 for stupid cheap at some point

i personally run gen 2s, like the feature set, but the 7-35 is a step up, i just dont like the scope as much for the extra coin...i prefer the zero system and locking turrets on the gen 2

NF made up a lot of ground in the reticle dpt with the mil-c and mil-xt IMO, i like them both...reticles was my biggest turn off on NFs for a long time

 

[plinkin]

if cost is a concern, a used gen 2 razor is hard to beat...prolly in the $1500 range now

i wouldnt compare the xrs2 to the atacr...only ones who will make that comparison are emotionally invested in the bushnell

a few months ago i posted an xrs2 for sale, for like $1200 or $1300...it sat for a week or 2 and i finally sold it for $1k i think...a gen 2 or atacr wouldnt last a day at that price...so you can probably find an xrs2 for stupid cheap at some point

i personally run gen 2s, like the feature set, but the 7-35 is a step up, i just dont like the scope as much for the extra coin...i prefer the zero system and locking turrets on the gen 2

NF made up a lot of ground in the reticle dpt with the mil-c and mil-xt IMO, i like them both

Understood, I never really considered the nightforce until I saw one at my local range and got a case of the "wants", with the xrs I figured it would be a good step up in glass quality, 10 mil turrets and have a zero stop. However I know the razor is the one of the best values going especially right now with some used prices dipping to 1500. I'm really wondering if the nightforce is better I guess and by how much.

 

[morganlamprecht]

i ran the xrs2 in a couple matches, glass was close to the gen 2s but my eye didnt like it as much

tracked fine, but i spun the elevation turret getting into a vehicle...i see too many turrets spin to not run locking, not a fan...if that issue isnt a concern, that was really my only gripe with it...if u ever sell it tho, expect to get hosed

 

[lte82]

Understood, I never really considered the nightforce until I saw one at my local range and got a case of the "wants", with the xrs I figured it would be a good step up in glass quality, 10 mil turrets and have a zero stop. However I know the razor is the one of the best values going especially right now with some used prices dipping to 1500. I'm really wondering if the nightforce is better I guess and by how much.

You’ll have better resolution and less CA with the NF, which makes spotting shots down range easier. Sometimes that improved feedback is worth points, sometimes it isn’t.

That said, no matter if you spend $1500 on a Razor 2 or $2500 on a 7-35 NF, three years they will have lost relatively the same amount of value. Buy the better scope, enjoy it.

 

[whatsupdoc]

I have a XRSII, not a bad optic, it has been 100% reliable. The turrets are a little mushy and it does not resolve as well as I think it should. You are looking at two optics that are a world apart.

 

[Hellbender]

Might consider the NX8 4-32, VERY close to an ATACR for a lot less money

 

[plinkin]

I have a XRSII, not a bad optic, it has been 100% reliable. The turrets are a little mushy and it does not resolve as well as I think it should. You are looking at two optics that are a world apart.

Are they both LOW scopes? That's crazy that there would be that big of a difference between the 2. I guess in my head I'm thinking the XRS ii is a fairly new scope that's made by a reputable manufacturer/country which is the same location or perhaps close to the location where the Nightforce is made, so they should be fairly close in spec. I was thinking maybe Nightforce had a bit more in QC and advertising, whichight explain some of the cost difference.

 

[Glassaholic]

if cost is a concern, a used gen 2 razor is hard to beat...prolly in the $1500 range now

i wouldnt compare the xrs2 to the atacr...only ones who will make that comparison are emotionally invested in the bushnell

a few months ago i posted an xrs2 for sale, for like $1200 or $1300...it sat for a week or 2 and i finally sold it for $1k i think...a gen 2 or atacr wouldnt last a day at that price...so you can probably find an xrs2 for stupid cheap at some point

i personally run gen 2s, like the feature set, but the 7-35 is a step up, i just dont like the scope as much for the extra coin...i prefer the zero system and locking turrets on the gen 2

NF made up a lot of ground in the reticle dpt with the mil-c and mil-xt IMO, i like them both...reticles was my biggest turn off on NFs for a long time

I agree with Morgan, NF made up a lot of ground when they finally introduced .2 mil hash reticles and thankfully they did it well. One thing about NF is they tend to hold their value a little better than other scopes, but keep in mind I've seen used ATACR 7-35's in the $2500 - $2600 range (meaning if you pay new prices and decide to get another scope you're going to lose some $$$). As Morgan also mentions, he took a big hit when selling his XRS II, most scopes will drop in value by about 10% from new and more than that once they've been out a while.

We're not saying the XRS II is a bad scope, on the contrary, for the price it is a great scope, especially the used price. Robert Brantley used the XRS II in 2018 to win the King of 2 Mile competition, granted he was sponsored by Bushnell but the fact he was able to effectively use the scope to win such a challenging competition has some merit. Bushnell hit a home run with their Elite Tactical line and the DMR/XRS series scopes, they may not be the best optically but they are solid mechanically. The DMR II Pro and the XRS II both share what Bushnell is calling ED Prime glass, which is an improvement over their previous ET series scopes in both resolution and CA control, does that mean it can compete with a NF ATACR, doubtful but they are an improvement over the older scopes which were already a solid design. That is a win for Bushnell in my book regardless if they are not as good as some of the alpha scopes, but they are also not priced at the level of the alpha scopes.

OP, consider this, in general you get what you pay for in the optic community but most any decent scope above $1k (and a few below) are more than capable of getting you hits on target out to 1000 yards and beyond so the question really becomes what compels you to spend more on an optic? For some it's reticle, for some it's turret feel, for some it's optical excellence and so forth. Choose which scope aligns with your needs/wants the best and be happy with your purchase, and don't second guess if you should've bought another scope (if you think you'll second guess yourself then do yourself a favor and buy the scope you'd prefer to begin with).

 

[Glassaholic]

Are they both LOW scopes? That's crazy that there would be that big of a difference between the 2. I guess in my head I'm thinking the XRS ii is a fairly new scope that's made by a reputable manufacturer/country which is the same location or perhaps close to the location where the Nightforce is made, so they should be fairly close in spec. I was thinking maybe Nightforce had a bit more in QC and advertising, whichight explain some of the cost difference.

Just because two scopes may be built at the same factory doesn't mean they'll perform the same. Manufacturer's spec different optical formulas which has an impact on performance. Not sure if the ATACR 7-35 and 5-25 are made at the same factory for NF but many owners of both believe the 7-35 is an improvement optically over the 5-25 - again, different optical formulas for each.

 

[rockn30809]

Are they both LOW scopes? That's crazy that there would be that big of a difference between the 2. I guess in my head I'm thinking the XRS ii is a fairly new scope that's made by a reputable manufacturer/country which is the same location or perhaps close to the location where the Nightforce is made, so they should be fairly close in spec. I was thinking maybe Nightforce had a bit more in QC and advertising, whichight explain some of the cost difference.

Just because they are built buy the same contractor does not mean they are built to the same specs. LOW builds the scopes to specs in individual contracts with different companies. Nightforce does have better QC and better materials to their specifications.

 

[Darkside-Six]

The XRS shouldn’t even be in the same conversation as the Nightforce 7-35 as the ATCR is a few steps above. If money is a concern, you can’t go wrong with a Gen 2 Razor for the money but if you can swing the price, the 7-35 is a really great scope.

 

[Ryridesmotox]

I have an XRS2. It is totally satisfactory in every way. It does exactly what I need it to reliably. The Nighforce is top tier for a reason. Its worth it if you have the money. It is slightly better in every way, glass, CA, turrets, and reticles. Is it 2x as good? I don't think so. The experience I have had eith the nightforce is very positive. But mine is on a cheap ass 308 howa 1500 that shoots just fine out to 1200 yards in good atmospherics. The bushnell does what I need it to, but all in all yea I'd rather have the nightforce. But I'm not going to drop that kind of coin on a scope.

If money is a concern, the XRS2 isnt going to hold you back.

 

[wigwamitus]

One aspect of the NF 7-35x is it will parallax down to around 10-ish yards.

I don't shoot it at 10yds, but what this means to me is that the 7-35 is way more "parallax friendly" than say the ATACR 4-16x which I also have. They seem night and day different to me on the parallax front. I can't say the 7-35x is parallax free, but its dang close to it. Since I usually shoot at night, sometimes I think I'd like to trade my 7-35x for a 5-25x ... but then I remember about the parallax "feature" and I think I will keep the 7-35x

 

[Heffo]

If the DMR has done great for you, then the XRS 2 will do even greater. It’s all a bees dick....so much wasted money on here and especially if you are only punching paper and steel having fun. Get the XRS and spend the rest on Ammo.