I love going after herds of guilty animals and having a reduced FOV. It’s awesome
Rifle Scopes Atacr gen 2
- Thread starter JohnDeereGuy1996
- Start date
Not trying to be smart but I hunt at night behind a thermal clip on and FOV sure is nice
I gave the 4-16 a try because I couldn't stand the tunneling on the early 5-25. I use 4-5x when calling coyotes sometime and looking down a $2.5k toilet paper tube just felt stupid. Did it prevent good shots? No. But it sure rubbed me wrong. I have owned at least one 4-16 at all times since then.
I kind of agree with what someone alluded to earlier...the 4-20 doesn't really offer much that the 7-35x doesn't unless you absolutely need to go <7x. Just the 4-16x42's turrets alone would make the 4-20 way more appealing imo.
I kind of agree with what someone alluded to earlier...the 4-20 doesn't really offer much that the 7-35x doesn't unless you absolutely need to go <7x. Just the 4-16x42's turrets alone would make the 4-20 way more appealing imo.
Sheeeit. Was going to use my 40 percent cert for another 4-16. Il just sell the cert and get another zco$2900 for a 4-16 ATACR
100% agree. I was “settling” with the atacr. Might as well go for the gold if the margins just closed.
Nightforce is a marketing company first and foremost. This is why they don't have new designs very often. I swear they spend 1% on R&D and 99% on marketing.
I'm constantly seeing the fanboys here, ads all over, Nightforce is the best thing and will never break even if I throw it off the space station....
I can't stand using the damn things. They don't do anything any better other than be heavy and outdated...
Nightforce is a marketing company first and foremost. This is why they don't have new designs very often. I swear they spend 1% on R&D and 99% on marketing.
I'm constantly seeing the fanboys here, ads all over, Nightforce is the best thing and will never break even if I throw it off the space station....
I can't stand using the damn things. They don't do anything any better other than be heavy and outdated...
Im not so sure their best days aren’t behind them. They were always a safe upper-mid pack bet but some of the people that made them a household name are long gone.
They could totally rectify that, but the gen2 atacr will likely net a 25-30% increase in price and land them into ZCO 527 price territory. If it can't compete there, NF will slowly die in the public market, perhaps the mil/le contracts can keep them afloat, idk.
I can't stand using the damn things. They don't do anything any better other than be heavy and outdated...
Scope body holds lenses, and turrets turn screws that holds the reticle. So In that aspect I agree with you that pretty much every scope does the same thing.
As long as the glass quality is acceptable, and it tracks true while holding zero I'm not sure what there is to hate.
I've been a fan of the nxs line is about the cheapest scopes that I've had no issues with zero retention and tracking. Overall they seem to weight similar as other offerings in the same class. So not sure what heavy means.
Well they are expanding and spending money on more than marketing and r&d…Nightforce is a marketing company first and foremost. This is why they don't have new designs very often. I swear they spend 1% on R&D and 99% on marketing.
I'm constantly seeing the fanboys here, ads all over, Nightforce is the best thing and will never break even if I throw it off the space station....
I can't stand using the damn things. They don't do anything any better other than be heavy and outdated...
Technically NOT NF, but kinda is.
The NXS is extremely outdated.
NX8 eyebox is the worst I've been behind (the 2.5-20 is manageable, 4-32 is the pickiest thing I've ever seen).
ATACR is nothing special except expensive.
If it makes you happy then keep at it. But in the marketplace right now there's always better options.
Oh, wow. So they had so much money they needed a business that's perpetually broke
Rumor is they serve steaks that are like their scopes. Tough.Oh, wow. So they had so much money they needed a business that's perpetually broke
Rugged. Reliable. Repeatable.
Did you look through an older one? I ask because I have a year-old one and it is, in general, awesome. @Glassaholic mentioned that newer NX8 models seem much better now than when they were first introduced. Seems to have had a stealth upgrade.
Perhaps NF also improved the 4-32 eyebox throughout the years because I think it is fine, and this is coming from an eyebox aficionado. It’s not as good as my G2 razor or my S&B 5-25, but it doesn’t make me feel like I need to glue my cheek down at an exact spot.
My 4-32 is also extremely flare resistant. Much better than the S&B, and sans hood it is equal to my Razor G2 with its hood.
I’m no NF fanboy. The 4-32 is my first and only NF scope.
Last edited:
I have an early and later production nx8 4-32, I feel no perceivable difference. However the early 2.5-20 I had briefly and the unit my friend has, are much less user friendly than the one I picked up 2 years ago. Early had a poor eyebox and almost fish eye view on low power, mine exhibits none of those traits, it's generally pleasent viewing experience. For a durable sub 30oz ffp optic, the nx8 is a solid performer, yes it has a few drawbacks, but there isn't much else that competes. Awaiting my delta Stryker 3.5-21x44 to compare against my nx8 and razor HD LHT.
Several friends have nx8s. They seem really nice.
I have atacrs and an nxs. I’m happy. Someday when I’m rich I’ll get a zco.
The big thing I wish the 4-32 had is a locking elevation turret. That’s about it. However, this week I am planning to test the DOF vs my other scopes. That may, or may not, be a weakness when pdog shooting.
For my next scope, the NF 7-35, G3 Razor, or another S&B 5-25 are all in the running. Briefly compared the first two indoors in a Scheels. Man, that G3 has got a huge eyebox!
For my next scope, the NF 7-35, G3 Razor, or another S&B 5-25 are all in the running. Briefly compared the first two indoors in a Scheels. Man, that G3 has got a huge eyebox!
G3 razor is pretty banger for the price it can be had second hand, I have a few.
There is no free lunch. Everything is trade offs. Want a short, 30mm tube with an 8x erector scope, expect a tight eyebox, thats what you will get. Doesn't matter the brand.
I have just about everything except Tangent Theta and ZCO. The TT315H had been calling me recently, but so far I've managed to stay away.
In my experience the nxs line is about the cheapest scopes where I've found to be reliable mechanically speaking. Glass isn't the greatest, but its acceptable. I'd much rather live with glass thats sub alpha and reliable then better glass and has a wondering zero.
So yes I agree with you that there are plenty of other options out there, I have a bunch of them too. But for hunting I've not found a more reliable scope then the nxs 2.5-10 in the same size and weight class at a similar price, euro or milehigh seem to sell them around $1400 often enough.
Back from my pdog trip. Here’s my updated take on my NX8 4-32.
- DOF? Def not as deep as my G2 Razor & S&B 5-25. Jury is out on if that bugs me.
- MIL-XT reticle is too busy & thick for pdogs (for me). Btw the main stadia width on other models varies, but the dots stay the same size.
- Eyebox more similar to a Razor LHT 4.5-22 than a PST II 5-25
But this is an ATACR thread?
I have a 2.5-20 NX8 Mil XT because I got it at a ridiculous discount. I like my Bushnell XRS II with the G3 reticle better, and paid about the same for them. That said, the ATACRs are a better scope for me than the NX8. Some days I love the Mil XT and others I am fine with the Mil C.
Big fan of the ATACR 4-16 as well as my VX6 HD 3-18, different weights and applications.
What real gains do we expect to see once the patent expires? Greater FOV at magnification?
What real gains do we expect to see once the patent expires? Greater FOV at magnification?
From what I understand swarovski owns a patent that covers scopes having over 22° fov.
Zeiss makes a scope for the Euro market and US market. The scope is 24° for the Euro Market and 22° for the US market.
I have no idea if that difference holds across different manufacturers. Only sample i could think of off the top of my head.
Zeiss makes a scope for the Euro market and US market. The scope is 24° for the Euro Market and 22° for the US market.
I have no idea if that difference holds across different manufacturers. Only sample i could think of off the top of my head.
OK, that is about what I thought - so my FOV goes from ~7' to ~8.5' at 18X @ 100 yards?
Not insignificant, but I don't know if it is enough to unleash a revolutionary generation of scopes outside of some very specific niches
Not insignificant, but I don't know if it is enough to unleash a revolutionary generation of scopes outside of some very specific niches
So does this FOV limit due to the patent only apply at minimum power? Or is this for all magnification?
Look at some of the reviews of the Khales 540. The FOV is fairly significant at distance. Not many people are only shooting at 100 yards.
These companies are thinking long term though. The first ATACR was released almost a decade ago. Why release a new generation that is meant to last 8-10 years when it would be handicapped against the competitors that will be upping their FOV game next year? It would have to really knock things out of the park in other aspects to be worth releasing when we are so close to the FOV wars ending.
Leica won in the EU, but lost in the UK, unfortunately. Idiot judge.
That’s why what Swaro did is called lawfare. It’s when a company or person is “wrong” but unjustly uses the court (or patent) system to get its way.
Supposedly next year June things will change as the patent expires.
I ask cause I know of a particular scope that has a part inside called something like a “field of view limiter”. Cant remember the exact name. I can possibly find out.
I was told that it was only to keep from seeing more junk or internals than necessary around the edges when on lowest magnification.
But I’m going off three year old memory.
I was told that it was only to keep from seeing more junk or internals than necessary around the edges when on lowest magnification.
But I’m going off three year old memory.
Essentially what many manufacturers use to stay in compliance with the patent. They can use all the clever marketing terminology they want as to why, but the cat was let out of the bag a few years ago and it seems more scopes than we realized are "limited" due to this patent (here in the USA). Hopefully the patent is up next summer and we can soon put this all behind us...
