Nightforce ATACR 4X16X50 F1 for a new rifle build

[mildot326]

So I'm in the process of putting together a 6.5PRC with a 24" barrel for a intermediate range hunting and target rifle. I have a couple of Steiner M series scopes in the 3X18 and 5X25 magnification range. This time I'm going with a Nightforce scope, I've handled a few and decided based on that, its where I'll be spending my $.

This time around I'm looking at the 4X16X50 ATACR F1 with the Mil-C reticle. Finding a scope online is not a problem, however I recently found out that this model has been discontinued and is being replaced by the 4X20X50 F1 model. While I have no qualms about the quality and support from Nightforce, I'm wondering if it may not be "better" to go with the newer 4X20 model?

Also, while we are on the topic I'd like to hear some feedback on the 4X16X50 F1 model, that may influence my decision on the newer model?
I've also decided to stay with that "medium" magnification range of the 4X16 line of scopes etc.

Thanks troops and stay safe

 

[B-P-UU]

I prefer the turret and overall size on the 42x version of the 4-16 and found the parallax slightly less finicky on the 42x model as well (again, slightly). Think the 42x is a better package, especially for hunting.

No experience with the 4-20, but price is going to be higher no question.

 

[boomslang]

Depends if the price difference is worth the 4x more magnification to you. Assuming your Steiners are sitting on guns currently filling that role until your 6.5prc build is done, what magnification range do you find yourself spending the most time on while doing intermediate range hunting and steel shooting?

 

[Adkhunter3]

I’d take the 4-16 for the elevation lock

 

[SRPowah]

While I haven't had the pleasure of checking out the 4-20x model, I prefer the 4-16x42 over the 4-16x50. It has been my main optic for 4 years now. People can argue the low light benefit of the x50 all they want, but I didn't see enough difference to make or break a shot. I would rather take the smaller package and locking low profile turrets of the x42 model.

If I was straying towards the $3k mark, I would rather eat a little more ramen and get a ZCO 4-20x.

 

[mildot326]

Thanks for the replies, so I see my shooting being between the 400-700 yard mark. Comparing prices on the 16 & 20, the 20 is about $800 more, so I'll be staying with the 16. On the subject of objective size, I have always gravitated towards a "larger" tube for light etc, however I do have both models available, and I have noticed a difference in the turret heights?

Overall size isn't really an issue or weight, and the Mil C and R reticles seem to be similar. Am I missing anything in my comparisons?
I will stay with a MIL/MIL set up, but I am flexible on the objective size if I can get the reticle I want.

Thanks

 

[B-P-UU]

The x42 has low profile, locking turrets with pre-set stop of 2 full MILS under travel. So turret will "lock" on your set zero "0" and hard stop 2 MILS under zero as well. To get the turret to spin from "0" you need to depress the locking button.

The x50 has the standard ATACR target turret (taller, not as wide). Does not have zero "lock" but the turret can be setup to stop on zero or any number you choose below zero.

 

[B-P-UU]

A few pics. Again, you are really splitting hairs but for me the 42x was and is a better package with the same performance as the 50x.

 

[Dobermann]

@mildot326: If you haven't done so already, the Nightforce ATACR™ 4-16x42 F1?? Opinions wanted thread had some good info on this issue.

Terry Cross had an excellent post in that thread - direct link is here - but here are a couple of quotes:

I have 2 that are used hard on demo guns and brought as spares to classes in case a scope goes down on a student rifle. Not uncommon to have both of mine on other people's rifles by Day 2 or 3.

This particular model also has the turrets I wish NF had put on ALL their scopes years ago. Low profile without all the BS. We are using the MiL-R reticles and they work perfectly for what we need them for.

Regardless of your reticle choice, the 4-16x42 is true commercial grade with excellent glass.

 

[mildot326]

Thanks, I have a stock shipping from Terry this week, what a coincidence, LOL, Cheers

 

[Thorbeast]

I like my 4-16x42 quite a bit, but sometimes I do wish I had the extra magnification. If cost wasn't a concern, I'd go with the 4-20, if it is, the 4-16 is a great scope. The one thing to keep in mind is the reticle thickness. I believe the 4-16 mil-r is .05, while most other reticles are .04. if you plan on spending a lot of time in between 4-10x, the extra thickness might be a benefit if you can live with the mil-r... Seems like most people hate it, but I don't think it's bad, especially for hunting.

 

[mildot326]

Thanks troops, I think based on my "hands on" and the comments above, the 4X16X42 is the winner, with the Mil-R reticle. I usually run Badger M40 rings, however my boss is using NIghtforce with his scope and I always have an open mind? What's the consensus these days on NIghtforce rings both the 4 & 6 screw and I'm guessing height wise 1"-medium should be good to go.