Rifle Scopes 2.5-20x50 NX8 or 4-16x42 ATACR for 18” DMR

[Cold_Bore_88]

I need a new scope for my 18” 5.56 DMR. I am torn between the two options from NF. I usually don’t like to go below 18-20x on my scopes but I see a lot of love for the ATACR, for obvious reasons. Both would be bought with a MIL-XT and cost around the same +\- $400

Any substantial optical quality I would be giving up by going with the NX8?

 

[Dogtown]

The 4-16x ATACR is something special - a damned near perfect 5.56mm SPR scope. The 2.5-20x is no slouch either, so honestly you can't go wrong with either, BUT if you like to dial a bit the ATACR turrets are nicer. If you really need the lower backend for a thermal clip-on, then the NX8 is a better choice IMO.

Ok, that's it for acronyms today - exceeded limit.

 

[Todc]

I'm running the baby ATACR on an 18" SPR and am not left wanting.

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

The 4-16x ATACR is something special - a damned near perfect 5.56mm SPR scope. The 2.5-20x is no slouch either, so honestly you can't go wrong with either, BUT if you like to dial a bit the ATACR turrets are nicer. If you really need the lower backend for a thermal clip-on, then the NX8 is a better choice IMO.

Ok, that's it for acronyms today - exceeded limit.

Great feedback. You pointed out a couple things I didn’t consider.

 

[VargmatII]

My friend did a review on the 2.5-20x a while back, you will have to use google translate but here is a link:

NightForce NX8 F1 2.5-20X50 MIL-XT

Recension av NightForce NX8 F1 2.5-20X50 MIL-XT

www.skytteguiden.com

 

[JayOpticspecialist]

What are you doing with your rifle? Depending on the use, what would benefit you more? the better glass in the atacr, or the more versatile magnification range? I always tend to lean to investing in better glass, and you could always do an offset red dot for close range shots. that said, I ended up doing a 2.5-10x32 on my 16 inch ar10, I really like it, but i feel i could really push it with a little more magnification (maybe I'm getting old). first focal would be nice too on an optic with that broad of a magnification range. could go either way!

https://cstactical.com/nightforce-nx8-2-5-20mm-f1-moa-xt-reticle-c651/

https://cstactical.com/nightforce-atacr-4-16x42mm-f1-mil-xtreticle-c615/

 

[diggler1833]

The ATACR will have a more usable magnification range and better glass. That'd do it for me.

 

[Terry Cross]

I need a new scope for my 18” 5.56 DMR. I am torn between the two options from NF. I usually don’t like to go below 18-20x on my scopes but I see a lot of love for the ATACR, for obvious reasons. Both would be bought with a MIL-XT and cost around the same +\- $400

Any substantial optical quality I would be giving up by going with the NX8?

Which 4-16 ATACR are you referring to?
The 42mm objective version is a totally different animal compared to the 50mm version.

NX8 is a tad physically smaller but at the cost of an unforgiving exit pupil, more critical eye relief envelope and definitely a much shallower depth of focus when compared to the 42mm objective version of ATACR.

You didn't mention whether the NX8 you are considering is FFP or SFP so I'm assuming FFP.
If FFP, I double dare you to use any of the reticle features while in the low end of your X.
As with a lot of the FFP scopes, the very reason you justified them over SFP is nullified when you are using the lower end of your magnification. This problem is more prominent as you look at FFP scopes with 1:8 and 1:10 ratio mag ranges.

The NX8 line is one that I really wanted to like when they were announced but in this case, I would vote for the 4-16x42

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

What are you doing with your rifle? Depending on the use, what would benefit you more? the better glass in the atacr, or the more versatile magnification range? I always tend to lean to investing in better glass, and you could always do an offset red dot for close range shots. that said, I ended up doing a 2.5-10x32 on my 16 inch ar10, I really like it, but i feel i could really push it with a little more magnification (maybe I'm getting old). first focal would be nice too on an optic with that broad of a magnification range. could go either way!

https://cstactical.com/nightforce-nx8-2-5-20mm-f1-moa-xt-reticle-c651/

https://cstactical.com/nightforce-atacr-4-16x42mm-f1-mil-xtreticle-c615/

Mainly just a plinker. Max range would be 600 on any kind of small game.

 

[phlegm]

I keep the ATACR on my 18" AR. The improved glass, locking turrets, and increased depth of field make it better for the matches I've shot with it.

I also have a 2.5-20x. I rarely use it below 4x in the daytime. Low light + illumination make the reticle a big red crosshair, so it works better at 2.5x then.

 

[PappyM3]

Which 4-16 ATACR are you referring to?
The 42mm objective version is a totally different animal compared to the 50mm version.

NX8 is a tad physically smaller but at the cost of an unforgiving exit pupil, more critical eye relief envelope and definitely a much shallower depth of focus when compared to the 42mm objective version of ATACR.

You didn't mention whether the NX8 you are considering is FFP or SFP so I'm assuming FFP.
If FFP, I double dare you to use any of the reticle features while in the low end of your X.
As with a lot of the FFP scopes, the very reason you justified them over SFP is nullified when you are using the lower end of your magnification. This problem is more prominent as you look at FFP scopes with 1:8 and 1:10 ratio mag ranges.

The NX8 line is one that I really wanted to like when they were announced but in this case, I would vote for the 4-16x42

The reticle features won’t be useful below ~5x, no. But even if you only use them above 8x, you have all of 8-20x where you can use those features.

Now, for SFP with the NX8 2.5-20, it will be MUCH more usable below 5x. BUT, there would be a lot of magnification range where you’d need to dial instead of using the reticle for drops. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be forced to stay at 20x in order to use the drops. It is not a usable magnification, particularly with how small the exit pupil is on that optic.

I suppose on the SFP version, it could be run at 10x, and then just double the mil values on the reticle in your head. But I’d rather have the reticle “on” at 10x. But then how do you ensure you’re actually at 10x when you have the magnification turned to what is labeled 10x.

Ultimately, if NF put the FC-DMx reticle into the 2.5-20 NX8, that would be fantastic. It would be very usable across the entire range. Not quite as precise at the top end as the Mil-XT, but much more usable for most purposes.

This would be it at ~2.5x and at 16x:
2.5x:

16x:

 

[diggler1833]

I have both an ATACR as well as an NX8, but both are different models than the ones in question.

I did get the NX8 to go on a hunting/critter killing rifle. I also went with the Mil-CF2D reticle (SFP, but has subtensions that mil correctly at 32x and 16x). At 16x, it is very much like looking through a Mil-C in that every hash mark is .2 mil. 16x is in that range that I typically kill stuff off the side of the house at, so this works perfectly for my application.

Unfortunately, I don't think they offer this type of SFP reticle in the 2.5-20. But Nightforce would be a lot cooler if they did.

 

[fdkay]

Seems like a Tract or Maven in 2.5-15 would fill your needs.
The ATACR 4-16 is a superior scope though.

 

[Terry Cross]

The reticle features won’t be useful below ~5x, no. But even if you only use them above 8x, you have all of 8-20x where you can use those features.

I guess this is where intended usage has to be considered. There are many instances where the user would not want to forfeit the FOV, larger exit pupil and brightness of the lower range.

Now, for SFP with the NX8 2.5-20, it will be MUCH more usable below 5x. BUT, there would be a lot of magnification range where you’d need to dial instead of using the reticle for drops. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be forced to stay at 20x in order to use the drops. It is not a usable magnification, particularly with how small the exit pupil is on that optic.

That's kinda my point.
It is sub-optimal on the high end and neutered on the low end.

You are getting a lot of compromises by going to a 1:8 ratio variable in the first place. Now you are giving away any benefit of FFP in the lower mags while getting an eye relief and exit pupil size that is not very user friendly on the higher mags.

That's an expensive optic to simply compromise on both ends of the mag range.

I suppose on the SFP version, it could be run at 10x, and then just double the mil values on the reticle in your head. But I’d rather have the reticle “on” at 10x. But then how do you ensure you’re actually at 10x when you have the magnification turned to what is labeled 10x.

Nobody is going to do that when in a hurry or under stress.
Not only will they likely forget to split the numbers, they would have to have the forethought to get the mag ring exactly on 10X to be accurate.

Verifying that 10X is accurately doubling the values would be easy to confirm on a fixed/known distance range against a known size object.
Something like this grid that I have been using in Basic classes will quickly verify.

Ultimately, if NF put the FC-DMx reticle into the 2.5-20 NX8, that would be fantastic. It would be very usable across the entire range.

Agreed.
That would be a nice option for those insisting on an NX8.

 

[Wormydog1724]

I'm using the NX8 with Tremor 3.
It lives in the 8x-18x range, mostly at 12x though.
This is on a precision 5.56 AR used for gas gun matches.

I like it just fine but have no experience with the ATACR 4-16x to compare.

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

I keep the ATACR on my 18" AR. The improved glass, locking turrets, and increased depth of field make it better for the matches I've shot with it.

I also have a 2.5-20x. I rarely use it below 4x in the daytime. Low light + illumination make the reticle a big red crosshair, so it works better at 2.5x then.

Ya. The low end of any scope is pretty useless to me. I shoot most matches and hunting situations between 12-20x.

 

[JayOpticspecialist]

Mainly just a plinker. Max range would be 600 on any kind of small game.

have you checked out both in person yet?

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

I'm using the NX8 with Tremor 3.
It lives in the 8x-18x range, mostly at 12x though.
This is on a precision 5.56 AR used for gas gun matches.

I like it just fine but have no experience with the ATACR 4-16x to compare.

Thanks for the feedback.

have you checked out both in person yet?

Unfortunately, no. Don’t have a place nearby that carries them.

 

[phlegm]

I have both an ATACR as well as an NX8, but both are different models than the ones in question.

I did get the NX8 to go on a hunting/critter killing rifle. I also went with the Mil-CF2D reticle (SFP, but has subtensions that mil correctly at 32x and 16x). At 16x, it is very much like looking through a Mil-C in that every hash mark is .2 mil. 16x is in that range that I typically kill stuff off the side of the house at, so this works perfectly for my application.

Unfortunately, I don't think they offer this type of SFP reticle in the 2.5-20. But Nightforce would be a lot cooler if they did.
View attachment 8696687

It's (mostly) your lucky day. The SFP version is in the 2.5-20, but only with one subtention value marked in the reticle.

 

[diggler1833]

It's (mostly) your lucky day. The SFP version is in the 2.5-20, but only with one subtention value marked in the reticle.

View attachment 8696793

Well F-me running. I guess I got a little trigger happy on buying my 4-32 (was on EV, and ever saw the 2.5-20 listed with this option). Guess I should have done the obvious and checked the manufacturer website too. I don't think I'd change my mind...but I'd have bought this ^ to go on a 6.5 Grendel for the kids to hunt with.

Regardless, EV pricing would have me going with whatever is available.

Much appreciated.

 

[houndog]

Never owned an ATACR, although I know the scope get a lot of love here. I do own an NX8 2.5-20 and really like it. The NX8 has very good glass, although I suspect the ATACR will be even better. ATACR will probably run you about $500 more, if that price differential is important to you. Personally, I think the larger magnification range makes the NX8 slightly more useful. Depending on your eyesight and the size of the target having an additional 4x on the upper range might be useful. And 2.5x at the lower range will make the gun more useful at fairly close range.

The one thing I would caution you about the NX8 is that it has a very shallow depth of field. With the parallax set for 100 yards, even something at 300 will not be in focus and require an adjustment. I suspect the ATACR will be significantly better in this regard.

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

I guess this is where intended usage has to be considered. There are many instances where the user would not want to forfeit the FOV, larger exit pupil and brightness of the lower range.



That's kinda my point.
It is sub-optimal on the high end and neutered on the low end.

You are getting a lot of compromises by going to a 1:8 ratio variable in the first place. Now you are giving away any benefit of FFP in the lower mags while getting an eye relief and exit pupil size that is not very user friendly on the higher mags.

That's an expensive optic to simply compromise on both ends of the mag range.



Nobody is going to do that when in a hurry or under stress.
Not only will they likely forget to split the numbers, they would have to have the forethought to get the mag ring exactly on 10X to be accurate.

Verifying that 10X is accurately doubling the values would be easy to confirm on a fixed/known distance range against a known size object.
Something like this grid that I have been using in Basic classes will quickly verify.

View attachment 8696752


Agreed.
That would be a nice option for those insisting on an NX8.

Terry,

Any issues picking up the center dot at 16x? I didn’t know if they increase the size of the reticle for the lower magnification.

 

[JayOpticspecialist]

Thanks for the feedback.

Unfortunately, no. Don’t have a place nearby that carries them.

given the criteria, I would go with the 4-16, or heck go with the new atacr 4-20, your talking 1 inch longer and 5oz more on weight, get the good glass and 20x magnification.

https://cstactical.com/nightforce-atacr-4-20x50-f1-mil-xt-reticle-c644/

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

I actually considered this but damn it’s a long scope.

 

[Terry Cross]

I actually considered this but damn it’s a long scope.

It kinda is. . . . .
but that is exactly why they can get the great performance and forgiving characteristics out of it.
It's not big just to be big.

The Dark Lord of Optics/ @koshkin has been on a few podcasts discussing the optical design limits and what is typically penalized when trimming down physical size (length).

He even specifically discusses scopes larger objective lens and short lengths from the turret housing to the front of the objective. . . which is exactly describing the NX8 2-20. . . .

The 4-16x42 ATACR isn't small but it is very forgiving in actual use with huge depth of focus and great resolution.
And don't let any old school fuds tell you the 42mm front end won't perform in low light.

 

[Terry Cross]

Terry,

Any issues picking up the center dot at 16x? I didn’t know if they increase the size of the reticle for the lower magnification.

I'm not 100% sure on tracking with your question.

The center dot on the Mil CF2 is going to stay slaved to the image size on the FFP version just like the rest of the reticle elements.

Your ability to see it is going to be directly related to the chosen magnification as well as the contrast of the background being viewed.

Seeing small FFP reticles on the low end mag is tough in low light conditions with dark backgrounds.
Just finding the center of the reticle can be challenging so you sure as hell better have good batteries in your Digilume.

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

I have atacr 4-16 milxt's with piggy back mounted holosun 509t's on my dmr/hunting ar15 & ar10 platforms . I think the atacr 16 top powered magnification is plenty for the 556 rifle you are putting it on. And the atacr has really nice lo profile locking turrets.

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

I'm not 100% sure on tracking with your question.

The center dot on the Mil CF2 is going to stay slaved to the image size on the FFP version just like the rest of the reticle elements.

Your ability to see it is going to be directly related to the chosen magnification as well as the contrast of the background being viewed.

Seeing small FFP reticles on the low end mag is tough in low light conditions with dark backgrounds.
Just finding the center of the reticle can be challenging so you sure as hell better have good batteries in your Digilume.

Apologies. At max magnification, is the .05 MRAD dot hard to see?

 

[Terry Cross]

Apologies. At max magnification, is the .05 MRAD dot hard to see?

That is going to fetch a very subjective answer.

I believe it is easy to see against medium to light backgrounds.
Lower magnifications would be very problematic for me to reliably resolve the dot itself even if illuminated.

Nobody mentioned it anywhere in this part of the discussion but a user's ability to acquire and resolve any of the reticle elements quickly and accurately will be highly dependent on that exact user properly adjusting the diopter of that exact scope to their own eyesight.

It's a 2 or 3 minute chore that surprisingly few shooters trouble with.

 

[Terry Cross]

Apologies. At max magnification, is the .05 MRAD dot hard to see?

Just to confirm, 99.9% of what I post is just my opinion. It's worth exactly what you paid for it so consume accordingly.
I am not an optometrist, ophthalmologist nor an optics engineer.

Your mileage may vary.
No animals were harmed in the typing of this opinion.
God bless America
Epstein didn't kill himself.