Nightforce atacr 4-16x42 vs leupold mark 5 3.6-18x44

[tmertz]

I have a dd5 in 6.5 cm that needs an optic, will be used for hunting and some target shooting. I have narrowed it down to the 4-16 atacr and 3.6-18 mark 5 with the illuminated tremor 3. I have handled a mark 5 in person but no experience with nightforce. Looking for opinions on both to make the best decision. TIA

 

[Brym427]

Id get a 4-16x42 in mil xt

 

[redx]

I would get the Leupold. I have had ATACRs and MK5s and I think the glass is better with the MK5. Thats what Im sticking on my MK12s

 

[Crews]

I’ve had both, either would be a good choice. Pick the one that has the reticle you like the best. I’d pick the Mk5 again because the whole objective rotating when changing zoom was kinda irritating on the ATACR.

 

[1911hombre]

I also have had both, and while I like them both, the ATACR is the clear winner IMO. I think the glass is better without a doubt, but that can be subjective. 4-16x42 is the sweetheart of the ATACR line.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I’ve had both in illuminated T3 and really liked both. I like the MK5 illumination on the T3 better, it illuminates a bit more than the NF which can be harder to see in low light. The ocular not turning is nice too.

 

[hafejd30]

4-16 ATACR MIL XT

 

[USNavy06]

Also own both and I like the mark 5 better.

 

[bmicek]

Another one here that has had both. To me they were on equal playing field. If I needed something bomb proof I’d take the ATACR. If I wanted something a little lighter then I’d take the MK5. If price was equal, I’d take the ATACR. Otherwise, choose the reticle you like and roll with either one.

 

[Reload10]

Put both on low power against dark background, then make a decision. Not many mk5’s have illumination and you’llknow why that’s important for this style optic

 

[FuhQ]

I have a dd5 in 6.5 cm that needs an optic, will be used for hunting and some target shooting. I have narrowed it down to the 4-16 atacr and 3.6-18 mark 5 with the illuminated tremor 3. I have handled a mark 5 in person but no experience with nightforce. Looking for opinions on both to make the best decision. TIA

Of the 2 mentioned, I’d go with the ATACR.

But if I might make a 3rd option suggestion…

Have you taken a look at the Kahles K318i? If you call the guys at EuroOptic, they might can even get you one close to the same price of the ATACR. It’s a phenomenal scope, with alpha quality glass. It’s fairly light, but built like a tank. Turrets and zero-stop are solid. Low-light it works amazing, but it also handles sun and glare with the best of them. Also one feature that most folks overlook, is the illumination adjustment feature on the Kahles doesn’t have preset notches. It is a smooth rotating dial that allows you to precisely dial-in your illumination where it works best for you so you can see both your reticle and target without glare or compromise of preset options. I put one on my main hunting rifle, because of how well it handles all weather and lighting conditions.

 

[dms416]

Had the ATACR 4-16 Mil-XT and the Mk5 with illuminated TMR and semi-autos. Despite some overlay on specs and being lumped into the same class, they feel like vastly different optics. It is not lost on me that my reticle choices were different and were I a Horus/Tremor person my input may be different if they were both T3...but this was my feeling:

The Mk5 felt more like an LPVO that just kept giving me magnification. It didn't "feel" like a full-size optic. It was light. The image was good but the FOV felt constricted. IMHO, with a lack of options in the current market, this feels like the ideal choice for a 16-18" SPR or semi auto where weight is a consideration without having to sacrifice a ton on optical performance.

The ATACR on the other hand does not feel as if it gives anything up to a regular full-boat precision optic...both good and bad. Despite the size footprint, I've never found it "light" on a shorty bolt gun or AR15. Mine felt very touchy on parallax and I'm not sure the reticle choices are optimized for the magnification range of this optic if you intend to run it much on the bottom end magnification.

I don't think you can go wrong, but if I had to get the absolute MOST out of my optic in pushing performance/distance, i'd probably lean ATACR between the 2.

 

[tmertz]

Well I was really leaning towards the mk5 because it was lighter,but found a used atacr in a Geissele mount for 2200 so I snagged that instead

 

[FuhQ]

Well I was really leaning towards the mk5 because it was lighter,but found a used atacr in a Geissele mount for 2200 so I snagged that instead

Better scope, you’ll be happier with the ATACR.

 

[Aedgagt512]

I’ve had both, either would be a good choice. Pick the one that has the reticle you like the best. I’d pick the Mk5 again because the whole objective rotating when changing zoom was kinda irritating on the ATACR.

Hi- could you elaborate on this (for the ATACR)? Newbie here and also considering the Nightforce versus the Leopold.

 

[hafejd30]

Hi- could you elaborate on this (for the ATACR)? Newbie here and also considering the Nightforce versus the Leopold.

The entire eyepiece rotates on the NF atacr. The spot circled in red below. Where on other scopes typically the ocular stays put and the mag ring turns

This isn’t a real issue unless you run a triggercam or scope caps. The tenebraex scope caps that come on the NF rotate easily out of the way but something like butler creek or similar would always be in the way

 

[1911hombre]

Why anyone would "upgrade" to Butler Creek is beyond me. Also, if you position the Tenebraex covers properly there's no need to rotate them. The whole "ocular rotating" is beyond overblown. Once you get used to it you'll appreciate it.

 

[hafejd30]

Why anyone would "upgrade" to Butler Creek is beyond me. Also, if you position the Tenebraex covers properly there's no need to rotate them. The whole "ocular rotating" is beyond overblown. Once you get used to it you'll appreciate it.View attachment 8147419View attachment 8147418

If you’re referring to my post I definitely didn’t say “upgrade” to butler creek

 

[Brym427]

Why anyone would "upgrade" to Butler Creek is beyond me. Also, if you position the Tenebraex covers properly there's no need to rotate them. The whole "ocular rotating" is beyond overblown. Once you get used to it you'll appreciate it.View attachment 8147419View attachment 8147418

I would agree. Under pressure I find that it's much easier to grab any part and twist to adjust my magnification than to reach for a narrow ring

 

[hafejd30]

Personally I don’t find it a big deal. Or even a small one. Just answering the question and stating what others tend to dislike

I own every atacr except the 5-25 and have no issues

 

[Aedgagt512]

The entire eyepiece rotates on the NF atacr. The spot circled in red below. Where on other scopes typically the ocular stays put and the mag ring turns

This isn’t a real issue unless you run a triggercam or scope caps. The tenebraex scope caps that come on the NF rotate easily out of the way but something like butler creek or similar would always be in the way
View attachment 8147255

Appreciated the detailed explanation. I could see how it might annoy some people.