Rifle Scopes NF atacr 4-16 vs mark 6
- Thread starter MJ2936
- Start date
Do you qualify for LE/Mil discount? If so, go with the mark 5 if you don’t need illumination. It looks like a great optic for the price and very lightweight.
I have the atacr and love it. I was looking at the mark 5 but I’m planning on using the reticle quite a bit and the Mil-C on the NF suited my needs better.
I have the atacr and love it. I was looking at the mark 5 but I’m planning on using the reticle quite a bit and the Mil-C on the NF suited my needs better.
Honestly it's kind of a toss up and boils down to personal preferences and which will have the better pice point for you. Both are great optics and fit the bill for DM/Urban Sniper, along with the S&B PMII 5-20 those 3 are my top recommendations for professional clients. If I had to pic the Mk6 with the Tremor 3 wins out for me personally due to weight, low-light performance and price point (LEO/MIL).
I can't comment on the leupold but it looks like the best scope from them in some time. I do have the NF 4-16 and it's an extremely good optic. The only thing it does exceptionally well is to be very good at everything 
Honestly no, I hardly ever use the illumination. When used properly with a UNS there doesn't seem to be much advantage. The only time it is kinda nice to have is for about 10 minutes in the morning and at dusk during IR cross over. Sometimes especial observing against dark backgrounds the illumination can help give some contrast, but I can really only thing of a handful of times over the years that I've said "Thank God for that illumination".
ATACR's are in the for sale section all the time for $1,800-1,900. At that price, the ATACR is a no-brainer. It's one of my favorite optics.
Last edited:
Probably Mil-R. The C and Tremor are definitely more precision minded. The tremor will likely cost more and also the mil-c as its in pretty high demand. The Mil-R is very common and you can likely negotiate a bit better on the price. Its also a much more simple reticle.
Personally, I would do NF over any Leupold. In my opinion, and it’s just an opinion, Leupold has priced themselves over their worth.
I was shooting with a buddy the other day who runs a MK6 on his KAC .308. I was shooting my .308 with a lowly NF SHV 4-14 F1. To my eye, the SHV was brighter, and more “crisp”.
NF is known to track well, be hell bent for durable, and the ATACR 4-16 just seems perfect for a gasser.
Just one opinion, but NF every time.
I was shooting with a buddy the other day who runs a MK6 on his KAC .308. I was shooting my .308 with a lowly NF SHV 4-14 F1. To my eye, the SHV was brighter, and more “crisp”.
NF is known to track well, be hell bent for durable, and the ATACR 4-16 just seems perfect for a gasser.
Just one opinion, but NF every time.
I have exactly zero experience with the tremors and horus-style reticles.
MIL-C has more detail and will likely cost a bit more since it's in demand as others have mentioned. I have no issue with the MIL-R.
MIL-C or Tremor 3 is my recommendation of a gas gun setup, but the MIL-R certainly isn't "unusable" or anything, especially once you get a feel for it.
I have L&S Mk6 T3 illum and ATACTR F1 7-35 T3 ... the NF glass has more resolution ... but IIRC the L&S is shorter and lighter than the NF 4-16x ... if that matters.
Illumination is good sometimes behind a thermal clipon. Not so much behind an NV clipon.
==
L&S 3-18 T3 on 6.5G(18) with thermal clipon ...
==
Same gun with the NF 7-35x T3
Illumination is good sometimes behind a thermal clipon. Not so much behind an NV clipon.
==
L&S 3-18 T3 on 6.5G(18) with thermal clipon ...
==
Same gun with the NF 7-35x T3
