My head is scrambled but I’ve got my choice down to these two optics. The rifle is a Q Fix and will be used primarily for target shooting and hunting—illumination is a must. For those who have used both—I’ve owned a non-illuminated TMR for several years—what would you buy? My max budget is $2500 for this scope.
- Thread starter adavis1138
- Start date
Thanks! The weight is pretty negligible, MK5 is about 26oz and the NF is 30oz.
I have the 4-16x42 on my REPR and it is superior to the MK5 that it replaced. Definitely a cut above in my book.
Anything specific you preferred about the Nightforce?
I think the glass is clearer and brighter, I like the turrets better, I like the Illumination better. There are a few threads on this ATACR; here is what Terry Cross had to say....his opinion holds weight with me.
The two scopes are very similar really and cater to the same customer I think. Even their reticle choices are similar with slight differences. Glass is in my opinion a wash. I’d more spend the time comparing the differences and go with what checks more of your boxes. At the end of the day one is a Nightforce and the other a Leupold.
I have the 4-16 Atacr and it’s a beast
NF has a reputation for solid optics. Leupold has a reputation for a couple decent optics (mk5) being one of them.
From my experience in the past NF is literary bullet proof (don’t believe me see their website) proven design across their platforms. Where Leupold has some products that are decent then some that have cut corners.
I’ve owned both NF and Leupold optics and hands down go with the NF reliability every time
NF has a reputation for solid optics. Leupold has a reputation for a couple decent optics (mk5) being one of them.
From my experience in the past NF is literary bullet proof (don’t believe me see their website) proven design across their platforms. Where Leupold has some products that are decent then some that have cut corners.
I’ve owned both NF and Leupold optics and hands down go with the NF reliability every time
I've had both. Now I only have the ATACR. Check out the new 4-20 ATACR too. The reliability of NF is second to none. Is there better glass out there? Maybe so. A more reliable scope? None. Schmidt and Tangent and Nightforce don't come with "lifetime no questions asked" warranties. Know why? They don't need to. No slam on the Leupold. It's great too- it's just not NF.
If you want to spend more time shooting and not waiting 4 to 6 weeks for warranty repair, go NF and don't look back.
Go the NF.
You can't beat the power of the Nightforce.
There's a YouTube video of them dipping an ATACR into a cauldron of molten Boron and it coming out unscathed!
They then use it to screw some drywall screws in to a 2x4.
Can't do that shit with no Vortex or Leupold.
You can't beat the power of the Nightforce.
There's a YouTube video of them dipping an ATACR into a cauldron of molten Boron and it coming out unscathed!
They then use it to screw some drywall screws in to a 2x4.
Can't do that shit with no Vortex or Leupold.
I am the owner of a 4-16 ATACR with the mil-c. I bought it recently, just before the release of Leupold's PR1 reticle. Had this reticle been released sooner, I probably would have gone with the mk5. Thus, right now I am thinking about flipping my ATACR for a mk5 5-25. But to answer the OP, comparing my 4-16 F1 ATACR to a buddy's MK5 3-18...
Both:
-Have the locking "Zerohold" button on the elevation turret. A small thing, but I love its simplicity. Wish all scopes had them
-Offer 0.2 mil subtension reticles. Only recently with the MK5 on the release of the PR1 mil. This and the NF mil-c are up my alley
-Track well. Both have been super reliable and true-to-track thus far
-Have perfectly fine glass. One doesn't outclass the other, and I can't tell a difference between their image quality. However, I have not looked at their low-light performance's side-by-side. For scopes, both are good, but in the end neither one has better glass than a spotter or pair of binos that cost half as much.
NF wins:
-The image at 16x in the NF looks better/bigger than the picture in the mk5 @ 18x. It is difficult to describe in words, but with the NF you are "sitting closer to the TV". IMO it just feels like more magnification at 16x than the mk5's 18x, and an altogether better picture. It is only something one would notice when looking through each one side-by-side. But the NF is a clear winner if you do.
Mk5 wins:
-Leupold owns the patent on the zerohold elevation button. This means ONLY the 4-16 NF has it because it was released before NF was sued for it (i think). All mk5 models have it. Not a big deal if you are only considering between the NF 4-16 and the MK5 3-18.
-Mk5's are lighter. I could run a mk5 5-25 for the same weight as my ATACR 4-16. I'm a glutton for counting ounces even though my rifle is 15 pounds, so take that for what you will
-Less expensive. It is reasonably priced, and can be had for several hundred dollars less than the 4-16 atacr. When comparing the 5-25 or 7-35 models between the two manufacturers, the mk5's look even better.
-Magnification is changed without turning the entire eyepiece... The lens caps on my ATACR cover up my bubble level at low power lol
Conclusion/TLDR:
-Between the mk5 3-18 and 4-16 ATACR: I like my ATACR better.
-Between any mk5 model and the 4-16 ATACR: I will likely buy a mk5 5-25 in the near future to replace my ATACR for the observations stated above. I'm really in no rush though, because this ATACR is nice.
-Between mk5 and ATACR in general: For me the mk5 wins because of their recent release of a reticle I like, they're lighter, they're less expensive, and have the zerohold locking button for all models. The optical and tracking performance between the two is really SO CLOSE that the button, reticle choice, weight, and cost are the major deciding factors. Since I have no experience with higher power models, this assumes that optical quality remains the same for the 5-25 and 7-35s for each manufacturer, respectively.
Both:
-Have the locking "Zerohold" button on the elevation turret. A small thing, but I love its simplicity. Wish all scopes had them
-Offer 0.2 mil subtension reticles. Only recently with the MK5 on the release of the PR1 mil. This and the NF mil-c are up my alley
-Track well. Both have been super reliable and true-to-track thus far
-Have perfectly fine glass. One doesn't outclass the other, and I can't tell a difference between their image quality. However, I have not looked at their low-light performance's side-by-side. For scopes, both are good, but in the end neither one has better glass than a spotter or pair of binos that cost half as much.
NF wins:
-The image at 16x in the NF looks better/bigger than the picture in the mk5 @ 18x. It is difficult to describe in words, but with the NF you are "sitting closer to the TV". IMO it just feels like more magnification at 16x than the mk5's 18x, and an altogether better picture. It is only something one would notice when looking through each one side-by-side. But the NF is a clear winner if you do.
Mk5 wins:
-Leupold owns the patent on the zerohold elevation button. This means ONLY the 4-16 NF has it because it was released before NF was sued for it (i think). All mk5 models have it. Not a big deal if you are only considering between the NF 4-16 and the MK5 3-18.
-Mk5's are lighter. I could run a mk5 5-25 for the same weight as my ATACR 4-16. I'm a glutton for counting ounces even though my rifle is 15 pounds, so take that for what you will
-Less expensive. It is reasonably priced, and can be had for several hundred dollars less than the 4-16 atacr. When comparing the 5-25 or 7-35 models between the two manufacturers, the mk5's look even better.
-Magnification is changed without turning the entire eyepiece... The lens caps on my ATACR cover up my bubble level at low power lol
Conclusion/TLDR:
-Between the mk5 3-18 and 4-16 ATACR: I like my ATACR better.
-Between any mk5 model and the 4-16 ATACR: I will likely buy a mk5 5-25 in the near future to replace my ATACR for the observations stated above. I'm really in no rush though, because this ATACR is nice.
-Between mk5 and ATACR in general: For me the mk5 wins because of their recent release of a reticle I like, they're lighter, they're less expensive, and have the zerohold locking button for all models. The optical and tracking performance between the two is really SO CLOSE that the button, reticle choice, weight, and cost are the major deciding factors. Since I have no experience with higher power models, this assumes that optical quality remains the same for the 5-25 and 7-35s for each manufacturer, respectively.
Last edited:
Great comparison... Lots of information I've been looking for. Two follow up questions...
1. Ease of use? Is one scope easier to get behind and obtain a clear, bright picture?
2. Is the magnification range materially different? Does the extra mag range on the mark 5 provide extra confidence (or additional capability) at both close and long range?
Thanks!
1. Both are easy to get behind. If I had to pick one, I think my NF is easier, but that could just be because I have more time behind it and its on MY gun.
2. The extra magnification on the mk5 is almost unnoticeable. When both are at max power, the picture in the NF is bigger and actually looks more magnified. For this reason, I would just consider their magnifications as equal at MIN and MAX. Neither outshines the other in long/short range capability--both are good. I find myself using 8-12 power the most with the NF; this seems to be the sweet spot for clarity and brightness. For shooting groups, the 16x is JUST enough mag to see holes semi-comfortably @ 100 yards. I do increasingly think I could benefit from more magnification, hence why I am looking at the mk5 5-25. But I wouldn't bother to replace my 4-16 ATACR with a 3-18 mk5 since this ATACR has the zerohold button, I like mil-c a little better than the PR1 mil, and the cost difference between the two isn't THAT big. (I bought my ATACR used)
Gunner also brings up a great point that I failed to mention. The LEO discount for the mk5 really tips the scales for price
Does the MK5 cost less because of no Illumination? Usually Leupold has a premium for illumination.
@adavis1138,
Both of your options are great scopes. I would save $700.00 (from your max budget), and buy this ATACR 4-16.
Both of your options are great scopes. I would save $700.00 (from your max budget), and buy this ATACR 4-16.
Yes, Leupold charges upwards of $500 for illumination and only on limited reticles, once you factor that in the price difference between Leupold and ATACR significantly narrows
Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42mm F1 Riflescope ZeroHold .1 Mil-Radian Capped Windage DigIllum 12 Mil PTL Mil-XT Like New Demo C615
FREE SHIPPING on Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42mm F1 Riflescope ZeroHold .1 Mil-Radian Capped Windage DigIllum 12 Mil PTL Mil-XT Like New Demo C615
You're right, I didn't consider that. Costs are more comparable when getting the mk5 illuminated. I never used illum when owning the nf for a year (I think it's illegal in my state for game anyway), but to some it's probably a must have
This is the answer, but not sure about the question. The Mark 5 HD is a very respectable brand and technology. Biggest gripe is that adding illumination to the Mark 5 makes the price jump. We are Leupold and Nightforce dealers, and specialize in military sniper rifles and scopes, and interesting that the US Military chose the Nightforce ATACR for SOCOM special force, but the Leupold Mark 5 HD for "big Army" snipers. That tells you something: the scopes are not that different.
But, the reviews, the data and my opinion is the NF ATACR is a grade above the Leupold Mark 5 HD, but how you will use your scope will tell you if you need that 2% to 8% improvement or not.
Similar threads
