Rifle Scopes NF ATACR 4-16 vs Leupold MK5 3.6-18

[opeagle]

I’m scoping an 308 AR with the thought of using it for mid range work. Say 100 to 700 yards.

In looking at scopes I’m somewhat drawn to a 3-5 power on the bottom and 15-20 give or take on the top end. In this it brings me to compare these two scopes.

I’m thinking of trying the Tremor 3 reticle and I see I can get it with both companies.
I’d like illumination, which narrows the MK5 options a good bit, but it’s not totally a deal breaker.

Otherwise if cost wasn’t the major factor, how well do these two Optics compare?

 

[jbell]

I have owned both. They are both excellent scopes, mechanically & optically. Choose based on your individual needs.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

I think the tougher call is because the Leupold lacks the track record the ATACR 4-16 does. The NF 4-26 is known to be a balls out tough, been there done that scope. This is NO poke at Leupold, because the MK5 might be too. Key word: MIGHT.
I was really looking at the MK5, but came across a great deal on an ATACR, and that was an easy decision. My shooting buddy has several ATACR’s to include a 4-16, AND he has the MK5. Maybe he will see this and offer his opinion.
It appears that Leupold has corrected many of the issues that plagued them with some of their previous offerings. Including the $$. In this market, there are several solid choices at around $2000-$2500. Leupold is looking good price wise, reticle wise, as well as size and weight.
Would I buy the MK5 ? Yes, almost did. Would I choose it over an ATACR? Not yet.

 

[Duffman1975]

I compared them in low light conditions (illumination turned off) and the ATACR did not do as well as the Leupold. The ATACR image was washed out and the reticle was tough to distinguish. Can't go wrong with either choice, but i would go with the Mark 5HD.

 

[LakuNoc]

I have ATACR 4-16x50 mine is SFP and i love it, i can shoot easy 1000 yards with that. Tacking perfect, glass clarity is aweaome 680 yards shooting coyotes no isue at all, and that was on snow surface at night with full moon.

 

[withoutwarning]

Nightforce.
Depends on what’s more important to you though. I feel too many compromises were made by leupold to get the weight and size down in the MK6 and MK5. Which in it self is very impressive and if that’s the only thing that important to you, which I thought it was for me, then select the leupold. Turns out I’d rather the optical performance.
Not a fan of my MK6 and will be selling it for the 4-16 with MIL XT reticle. Maybe the SB 5-20 ultra short with their new grid reticle. Will have to wait until they actually reveal it at shotshow.

 

[LakuNoc]

My friend have SB 5-20 ultra short and i tried it, eye box on S&B not even close to NF but that's to me and my eyes. Make sure you try S&B 5-20 ultra short first and see if you like eye box before you buy it.

 

[BCP]

The leupold in lightweight rings might save you a few ounces.

Both of those scopes are good but if I were to bet on one being more reliable than the other it would be the Nightforce.

If I had a 1500-2000 budget for an AR10 scope I might try to snag a used kahles or schmidt/bender as well. Just something to think about.

FWIW after sending in lots of leupolds I've decided to put nightforce, kahles and steiner military on everything. YMMV.

 

[sabrecross]

I read the entire thread; a lot of great comments and comparisons. The mark 5 HD is the next scope I'll likely be purchasing.

 

[Slevin182]

Don't have that Mark 5, but I do have the 5-25 in a Tremor 3(non-illuminated) and I'm really impressed. I also have a Mark 6 3-18x44 with an illuminated TMR reticle and I've been happy with that, but if I get another scope with the same zoom range it'll be the Mark 5 3.6-18 with a Tremor 3 to save some money. They don't have the Mark 5 3.6-18 with an illuminated Tremor 3, but honestly I've never used the illumination out of necessity, and like i said the next one will be non-illuminated to save some $. For target shooting I prefer the Tremor 3 over the TMR. The glass on my Mark 5 is every bit as good if not better than the glass on my Mark 6.

 

[MOUNTIC]

On the 3-15 ish optics with really fine reticles, I find them not very useful in that 3-8 mag range. If I had to buy a 3-18 mk5 again it would only be in the Illuminated TMR. I would pick the NF over the Mk5 in that mag range. And if this is going on a gas gun, you probably want to have a good useful reticle in the lower mag range, unless your running an offset RDS.

I would look at the Minox ZP5 315 with MR2 for your 0-700 requirement. Minox USA has them for 2k right now on blowout sale.

 

[Primus]

Both have shitty reticle choices, so neither .

March 3-24x52 is the ultimate gas gun optic. Light, small footprint, stupid light and durrable.

 

[jmatt6.5]

I was in the same situation for my 223 bolt gun. I ended up going with the Nightforce due to the price.The Leupold was $700 more with the Illuminated TMR than the Nightforce with the Mil R. Both scopes were great, but it come down to price for me. The Leupold in Australia was around $3800 for the Illuminated model.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I’ve run both a good bit and IMO hands down the Mark 5 is a better optic. It’s lighter, the whole ocular doesn’t turn, it has a Euro style fast focus diopter, and it without a doubt has better glass.

Wait a little bit and you should get your wish as far as illumination.

 

[Grease]

JW, do you have a link to that Minox sale.

Thanks

 

[MOUNTIC]

https://www.minox-usa.com/close-out-offers/minox-zp5-3-15x50-mr2-co


Sent you a PM also.

JW, do you have a link to that Minox sale.

Thanks

 

[wigwamitus]

I'm working thru this same decision ... the NF illumination is a plus for me .. both the green and the red in the NF. I don't use it much, but I like the green (which I have in the 7-35x T3) because it is SOOOO dim ... and I need dim. I use the illumination in two cases
A - with thermal clip ... I can invert to white hot ... but if I already had the Illum on then I might not have to invert and I can save 1-2 seconds.
B - When co-witnessing rifle mounted range finders, ir-lasers or ir-illuminators. Here the Illum helps me find the center of the reticle when looking thru the rear of the scope with a pvs-14 with the lasers washing out the centers.

The Mk5 is lighter and that is a plus for me.

I have 3 use cases:

01 - Long distance / wind practice
02 - Hunting, yotes, coons, opossum and hogs
03 - 100yd dots and groups drills

For hunting the 3x-10x magnification gets used a lot. I usually sit on 3x and most shots are made on 3x but sometimes I crank up a little for the shot if I have time.
For long distance on my land, right now 750yds is my max distance and I shoot IPSC(2/3) steel (12 x 18 inches on the bottom 6x6 inches on the top). And 18x works fine for that ... I have a mk6 3-18x T3

And for dots, 18x works, it is about the least amount of magnification that works. I find 15x to be not enough. But 18x works. My dots are 3/4 inch.

And then there is the price and the Mk5 is usually showing a lower price than the NF and I'm in the market for two of the 3.6-18x or 4-16x and one 5-25x of some flavor ... and I've considered another mk6 or a mk5 or the NF ... and right now leaning towards the Mk5 ... but reading threads like this one to gather more data.

 

[MOUNTIC]

Another optic that gets overlooked that can be had for a great price new second hand is the USO B17.

 

[Winny94]

Both have shitty reticle choices, so neither .

March 3-24x52 is the ultimate gas gun optic. Light, small footprint, stupid light and durrable.

Mil-C, Mil-XT, Tremor 3 (which OP said they wanted), TMR, CCH. The March is only 1.5 ounces lighter than the Mk5. Not to mention the price difference.

 

[rndmrider]

On the 3-15 ish optics with really fine reticles, I find them not very useful in that 3-8 mag range. If I had to buy a 3-18 mk5 again it would only be in the Illuminated TMR. I would pick the NF over the Mk5 in that mag range. And if this is going on a gas gun, you probably want to have a good useful reticle in the lower mag range, unless your running an offset RDS.

I would look at the Minox ZP5 315 with MR2 for your 0-700 requirement. Minox USA has them for 2k right now on blowout sale.

Looks like Leupold is offering an illuminated Tremor reticle in the 3-18 now which I believe was only previously available in the 5-25. There is also two new Mark 5HD MOA offerings...wonder what else might be in the works.

 

[5RWill]

I've only gotten behind the small MK5 prematurely at DST down here, i used the 5-25 for a month or so, shot a PRS match with it, an F-class match with it, and loved it honestly. Had it side by side to my friends ATACR 5-25 and for the money it's hard to find anything better than the Leupold. Only real issue i had with it is the reticle choices do suck for Leupold. NF at least has the Mil-C and soon to be the Mil-XT, both very good reticles. I think if money isn't an option i'd lean towards the ATACR 4-16x50 F1 now that NF has two solid reticle choices they're much more appealing to me. If weight and budget are a concern it's an easy decision, MK5. Glass wise they might as well be equal with maybe a nod to the MK5 in low light. Contrast, reticles, turret, and likely eyebox go to NF. Resolution is pretty much equal, ocular rotation i can't stand on NF FWIW.

All in all while i'd give the nod to NF overall i still want a MK5 for my SPR badly, just don't have any income at the moment. It's the perfect AR optic IMHO. For the prices the you can find them at, they're incredibly hard to pass up.

 

[phlegm]

I looked at the T3 in the ATACR, but didn't like it. It was basically unusable at 4x.

Having bought the Mil-C version, I'm interested to see if the Mil-XT is an improvement over the T3.

 

[Hippy_Steve]

I love everything about my MK5 except the TMR reticle. I'm looking to try something different, but if the reticle was any better I'd call the mark 5 a home run for the price.

 

[msstate56]

I have both NF 4-16 and the Leupold Mk5 3.6-18. The earlier comment on the mk5 being better in low light has been my experience as well. I have the Illuminated TMR, and it resides on a 300 win mag hunting rifle. I like the low light performance and the TMR is thicker and easier to find at low power hunting environments. However, the NF 4-16, with Mil-C is my match rifle scope. I MUCH prefer the 0.2 hashes of the Mil-C to the TMR. I'm not a fan of the T3, or the CCH. If Leupold would create an updated "TMR" with 0.2 mil marks and a vertical line with hashes all the way to the bottom (that's illuminated) I would not hesitate to switch to the Mk5 on a match rifle.

As an aside- my Mk5 has tracked perfectly over 400 rounds of 300 win mag out to 1000 yards.

 

[07jkjeeper]

I love my ATACR but really like the Mark 5. I'm going to keep the Nightforce on my heavy guns and use the Mark 5 on my long range mountain guns.

 

[Glassaholic]

Not sure about your time frame but another scope that might give the NF and Mark 5 a run for their money is the new Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50. I’ve had the Mark 5 and thought it was a fantastic little scope for being so short and light.

 

[wigwamitus]

I have a mk6 3-18x T3 and a NF 7-35x T3 and like both. I have a mk5 5-25x T3 inbound will shortly be able to determine if the mk5 is competitive. I'm drawn to these scopes due to the availability of the T3 reticles. For those who don't like hold-over reticles or wind dots, there are plenty of other scopes out there ... but there are less scopes with T3 reticles and I guess I am on the path of replacing at least 2/3rds of my scopes with T3 reticle scopes. The wind dots are "addictive"
So will report back once I get the mk5.
For me, if cost was no object, I would get the NF as they have the proven track record of reliability. And the illumination is both green and red and I prefer the green for use with pvs-14 when co-witness lasers/laser range finders. Which is mostly what I use the illumination for.

 

[Slevin182]

After getting the Mark 5 5-25 in a T3 I plan on getting the 3.6-18 in a T3 as well for An AR-10. Same dimensions as an ATACR 4-16 but lighter and wider zoom range

 

[TangoSierra916]

Nightforce.
Depends on what’s more important to you though. I feel too many compromises were made by leupold to get the weight and size down in the MK6 and MK5. Which in it self is very impressive and if that’s the only thing that important to you, which I thought it was for me, then select the leupold. Turns out I’d rather the optical performance.
Not a fan of my MK6 and will be selling it for the 4-16 with MIL XT reticle. Maybe the SB 5-20 ultra short with their new grid reticle. Will have to wait until they actually reveal it at shotshow.

@withoutwarning Curious on what you feel Leupold compromised on for the MK5.

@opeagle - which did you go with? i know Im a little late to the party.

 

[longshot2000]

Lots of comments. I do not see the two operating in the same league. Mark 5 is a very nice scope, but it is not an ATACR.

 

[jbell]

Lots of comments. I do not see the two operating in the same league. Mark 5 is a very nice scope, but it is not an ATACR.

I have owned both (among several other high end brands) and IMO the ATACR is the only other scope I would personally choose if not able to get the MK5. To me they are very hard to choose one over the other. It sounds like you feel the ATACR is clearly the better scope, I am curious as to why?

 

[Bandit31]

@jbell did you find the MK5 to be easier to get behind than the ATACR?

 

[CSTactical]

If anyone is looking for the excellent Nightforce Optics 4-16x42 F1 Mil-XT, hit us up at 916-670-1103

 

[Jonnyb0381]

Lots of comments. I do not see the two operating in the same league. Mark 5 is a very nice scope, but it is not an ATACR.

Close but no cigar?
Imo there is not a $1,000 difference between the two.

 

[5RWill]

Close but no cigar?
Imo there is not a $1,000 difference between the two.

No not between the 5-25s. ATACR is the better optic but the Mark 5 is close. You'll find people that prefer one to the other. Resolution wise they're pretty equal IMHO. Contrast i'd give to NF among other things but purely from a glass perspective it's extremely close. For the money the Mark 5 is very hard to beat. If Leupold had anything remotely like a EBR7B, SKMR3, Mil C, etc. I'd have three by now. Low light performance with the Mark 5 is phenomenal too. Here's a comparison/review (my opinion obviously) between the ATACR and Mark 5.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...t-leupold-mark-5.6869995/page-11#post-6948253

 

[Jonnyb0381]

No not between the 5-25s. ATACR is the better optic but the Mark 5 is close. You'll find people that prefer one to the other. Resolution wise they're pretty equal IMHO. Contrast i'd give to NF among other things but purely from a glass perspective it's extremely close. For the money the Mark 5 is very hard to beat. If Leupold had anything remotely like a EBR7B, SKMR3, Mil C, etc. I'd have three by now. Low light performance with the Mark 5 is phenomenal too. Here's a comparison/review (my opinion obviously) between the ATACR and Mark 5.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...t-leupold-mark-5.6869995/page-11#post-6948253

Thank you Will and nice write up btw.
I appreciate your thoroughness. Unfortunately, I've never had the pleasure of comparing both side by side outdoors but I'm quite confident that you summed things up as to what most shooters prospectives would be.

 

[jbell]

@jbell did you find the MK5 to be easier to get behind than the ATACR?

No, they are pretty close. I think both are good enough, they are no 4-16 Hensoldt but they are not bad...

 

[Bandit31]

No, they are pretty close. I think both are good enough, they are no 4-16 Hensoldt but they are not bad...

Thanks, I have quite a few ATACR's, just been curious of the MK5 for awhile. Maybe it's because I have so much time behind the ATACR, but I find them quite easy to get behind.

 

[jbell]

Thanks, I have quite a few ATACR's, just been curious of the MK5 for awhile. Maybe it's because I have so much time behind the ATACR, but I find them quite easy to get behind.

They are. I have not missed my ATACR's since moving over to the MK5's. I will say that with the MK5's I like the 5-25 a bit better than the 4-16, it just seems like a better optical design. But that may just be me...

 

[kukworld]

Don’t meant to hijack the post, but since the new NX8 series is coming out, the comparison should be really about Mark 5 vs NX8 instead of Atacr

 

[5RWill]

Thank you Will and nice write up btw.
I appreciate your thoroughness. Unfortunately, I've never had the pleasure of comparing both side by side outdoors but I'm quite confident that you summed things up as to what most shooters prospectives would be.

No problem bud i wish i had more time to be more thorough like Bill does on here checking with Snell charts and such.

Don’t meant to hijack the post, but since the new NX8 series is coming out, the comparison should be really about Mark 5 vs NX8 instead of Atacr

Except the MK5 5-25 competes with the ATACR and is a 5x erector design so it's pretty fair honestly. I think people have forgotten that ATACRs used to be inline with Gen II razor pricing. They weren't always $3000 IIRC less i'm just thinking of the SFP variants. I can't really speak for the short one but the 5-25 is right there with the Gen II razor, ATACR, XRS II, Cronus, and lots of glass coming from LOW. Which means all things considering it's excellent. Coupled with the low light performance they make a great hunting optic.

I think it might be worth comparing the 3.5-18x44 MK5 to the NX8 just based on size but i don't think either of them will best the 5-25, i'd be shocked if they did.

 

[Slevin182]

Great writeup @5RWill between those two scopes. Have not had the opportunity that you have had to directly compare them. Have an ATACR 1-8 on order, but that wouldn't make for an informative comparison. My second MK5 just got delivered last night. (3.6-18, CCH reticle) Opened my front door to find it sitting on the front porch, thanks a lot UPS. Anyways got it mounted up, hoping to shoot with it tomorrow. Only got to look through it about ten yards to the end of the hall, but it was easy enough to get behind. Just as easy as the 5-25. When I was shopping around for a scope in this magnification range for a 308AR build, I remember considering the ATACR 4-16. But for a wider zoom range, the MK5 3.6-18 was a half inch shorter, 4 oz lighter, and approaching $1,000 cheaper. For a comparable piece of glass, that made the choice easy. Anyone else shot with the CCH reticle? I have the Tremor 3 on the MK5 5-25, but wasn't using the wind dots much so decided to change it up with the 3.6-18.

 

[kukworld]

Great writeup @5RWill between those two scopes. Have not had the opportunity that you have had to directly compare them. Have an ATACR 1-8 on order, but that wouldn't make for an informative comparison. My second MK5 just got delivered last night. (3.6-18, CCH reticle) Opened my front door to find it sitting on the front porch, thanks a lot UPS. Anyways got it mounted up, hoping to shoot with it tomorrow. Only got to look through it about ten yards to the end of the hall, but it was easy enough to get behind. Just as easy as the 5-25. When I was shopping around for a scope in this magnification range for a 308AR build, I remember considering the ATACR 4-16. But for a wider zoom range, the MK5 3.6-18 was a half inch shorter, 4 oz lighter, and approaching $1,000 cheaper. For a comparable piece of glass, that made the choice easy. Anyone else shot with the CCH reticle? I have the Tremor 3 on the MK5 5-25, but wasn't using the wind dots much so decided to change it up with the 3.6-18.

I was on the same boat. Recently purchased HK MR 762 and shopping for new glass. NF 4-16 is on top of my list. The spec of MK 5 looks very tempting, but i’m still leaning toward NF, because of robustness and reliability of NF. I’m setting my HK as DMR type of rifle so the size and weight is my secondary concern. Optical performance and reliability is what I’m looking for. With the MK5 scopes, what type of mount are using? There are not many options out there

 

[sevenplagues]

That Mark 5 is really lightweight and compact and i dont think it is a bad option. However, for that distance I'd want more magnfication personally, not because I couldn't make the shot, but just for the extra target identification power. Also, I've been shooting on the Tremor 3 reticle with my ATAC-R 5-25 and a I love it. The 4-16 nightforce had better glass and contrast when I compared these two.

 

[Slevin182]

I was on the same boat. Recently purchased HK MR 762 and shopping for new glass. NF 4-16 is on top of my list. The spec of MK 5 looks very tempting, but i’m still leaning toward NF, because of robustness and reliability of NF. I’m setting my HK as DMR type of rifle so the size and weight is my secondary concern. Optical performance and reliability is what I’m looking for. With the MK5 scopes, what type of mount are using? There are not many options out there

Drool over that MR762. NF definitely has the legacy behind it, however I can't imagine these MK5 scopes not doing everything I want and more. I mean honestly my two scoped AR pattern rifles are shot off a bipod either from a bench or prone, and don't get carried in the field. The MK5 5-25 is on a PRS style bolt gun, and so also won't get banged being dragged through the woods or anything. For my scopes the only time they would really get abused and put to the test would be a real SHTF situation. I don't doubt their capability come that day. The ATACR 1-8 I've got on order is going on a 5.56 carbine for 3-Gun, tactical courses, general purpose etc and will get the most real-world action. I've got the MK5 5-25 in American Rifle Company Rings, 24mm height. Should give me a nice gap with the medium palma barrel I have on order. The MK5 3.6-18 and the MK6 3-18 are both in Larue LT-204 mounts. Great mount, especially for the money. ESPECIALLY when they're on sale. I think last holiday season you could get one shipped for about $110. I've already for another LT-204 for the ATACR 1-8.

 

[sevenplagues]

Drool over that MR762. NF definitely has the legacy behind it, however I can't imagine these MK5 scopes not doing everything I want and more. I mean honestly my two scoped AR pattern rifles are shot off a bipod either from a bench or prone, and don't get carried in the field. The MK5 5-25 is on a PRS style bolt gun, and so also won't get banged being dragged through the woods or anything. For my scopes the only time they would really get abused and put to the test would be a real SHTF situation. I don't doubt their capability come that day. The ATACR 1-8 I've got on order is going on a 5.56 carbine for 3-Gun, tactical courses, general purpose etc and will get the most real-world action. I've got the MK5 5-25 in American Rifle Company Rings, 24mm height. Should give me a nice gap with the medium palma barrel I have on order. The MK5 3.6-18 and the MK6 3-18 are both in Larue LT-204 mounts. Great mount, especially for the money. ESPECIALLY when they're on sale. I think last holiday season you could get one shipped for about $110. I've already for another LT-204 for the ATACR 1-8.

What kind of deal did you get on the ATACR 1-8? I've been eyeballing them pretty hard...

 

[Bandit31]

Well, I ended up buying a 3.6-18x Mk5 and it arrived a couple days ago. I've spent a little time comparing it to the 4-16x42mm ATACR F1's I have and I have to say as of this moment I do prefer the ATACR more. I was planning on doing a rather comprehensive review but with this weird ass weather that's been going on in my AO ( it's supposed to be over 103 today, 86-87 Friday, and then back to the triple digits with temps 105-110+) I may have to just move along and go back to something I'm familiar with.

 

[sevenplagues]

Well, I ended up buying a 3.6-18x Mk5 and it arrived a couple days ago. I've spent a little time comparing it to the 4-16x42mm ATACR F1's I have and I have to say as of this moment I do prefer the ATACR more. I was planning on doing a rather comprehensive review but with this weird ass weather that's been going on in my AO ( it's supposed to be over 103 today, 86-87 Friday, and then back to the triple digits with temps 105-110+) I may have to just move along and go back to something I'm familiar with.

Tell us more!

 

[Bandit31]

Well, I'd like to try and be as objective as I can given my limited time behind the Mk5 nut as I mentioned before I do have a significantly more amount of time behind the ATACR so take my opinion for what it is.

As far as fit and finish goes, I give the edge to the ATACR. It just feels more robust and full. Parallax adjustments and changing magnification are smoother on the ATACR but I like Leupolds usage of the throw lever more. On the ATACR, I found using the included throw lever interfered with bolt operation and I never used it.

The elevation turret is more tactile and audible on the MK5. I do slightly prefer the size and design on the MK5 over the ATACR. However, I feel like the windage turret (not like I expect to many to use them on either) is much better on the ATACR. I know on the MK5 people have mentioned it being....odd...and it is. The way Leupold did the reference marks is rather confusing and I can see it being difficult to tell if the turret is lined up with the scope body. The shape of the windage turret on the Mk5 just didn't feel right either.

I haven't put batteries in the Mk5 to compare illumination and don't plan to at this time since I'm on the fence of keeping it or not.

Glass wise, I do like the Mk5 more than the ATACR. I'm rather sensitive to CA from one to many head injuries. I know it doesn't bother some but to much CA causes a few to many complications so I try to avoid scopes that show it as much as possible. At this time, I haven't really seen much of any with the Mk5 and in years of owning the ATACR's, never found any to be troublesome. I do like the FOV more on the MK5 over the ATACR also. On the Mk5, the glass seems brighter and crisper where as the ATACR seems fairly neutral on colors. I have also heard many times that the MK5's are fantastic in lowlight which is a plus in my book, although I have been pleasantly suprised by how well the ATACR has done.

Reticles, I don't want to get into much. I'm not picking about reticles but largely prefer non grid/ tree reticles. On the Mk5 I chose the illum TMR and have a Mil C and Tremor # in my ATACR's. The TMR is fine but really needs to improve.

What is keeping me on the fence about the Mk5 is the eyebox and the feel behind it. For the sake of comparison. I have two rifles set up, both in KRG Whiskey 3 folders, same cheek pieces, same length of pull, etc. The Mk5 appears to be alot tighter than the ATACR in this regard. This can largely be attributed to be being more familiar with the ATACR but the MK5 just doesn' t feel as easy to get behind. Now, the MK5 isn't terrible by any means, I just find it easier to be set up behind the ATACR, especially in field positions.

All in all, I think the Mk5 is great, sure like anything it can use some improvements but I feel Leupold did something really well so far. For the price difference between the two, my minor gripes sure can be disregarded. Everyone has different preferences and I'm sure some others who have owned one or the other may disagree with me on some points. For some they can also live with the minor differences between the two because of the price, I however have no problem spending the extra coin on the ATACR.


EDIT: I would like to say that the new NX8 will be a better comparison towards the MK5. I feel with the design of both, they may be more closely related and offer a better comparison.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

Well, I ended up buying a 3.6-18x Mk5 and it arrived a couple days ago. I've spent a little time comparing it to the 4-16x42mm ATACR F1's I have and I have to say as of this moment I do prefer the ATACR more. I was planning on doing a rather comprehensive review but with this weird ass weather that's been going on in my AO ( it's supposed to be over 103 today, 86-87 Friday, and then back to the triple digits with temps 105-110+) I may have to just move along and go back to something I'm familiar with.

$1,000 more?