Rifle Scopes NX8 4-32 vs ATACR 4-16X42....The gas gun dilemma

[ClosetCaseNerd]

Shopping for a gas gun, so hence looking at lighter weight options. I'm not interested in other scopes at this time, though I recognize that there are other options (Vortex AMG, K3-18i, Mark 5, S&B, etc) that could also fit the bill.

It has been mentioned in passing that the 4-32x NX8 does not exhibit the edge to edge clarity issues that the 2-20x NX8 does. I would optimally like 20-25x high end magnification available (all I use on my 7-35 ATACR) so the 4-16x42 ATACR would fall short in offered mag, the 4-32 NX8 would deliver the requested magnification but at *those* magnifications I'm not sure that IQ and and eyebox would be tolerable. I have no means to physically interact with these scopes.

Q1) For those that have personally interacted with both (seems not a lot of 4-32x experience available) if I stuck to 20-25x on the 4-32 NX8, is the eyebox tight? Am I going to hate life with it on a rifle without an adjustable stock?

Q2) Does the 4-32 NX8 design yield better IQ and less distortion than the complaints against the 2-20x NX8 bringing it closer overall to ATACR IQ?

 

[dustingaunder]

I compared the 4-32 side by side to my ZP5 5-25 and I was very happy with the IQ of the 4-32. Edges weren’t as sharp as the ZP5 and the eye box gets tight at the top. I think the 4-32 is a great scope for the weight and size. There will be compromises with an 8x erector but I think they did a pretty good job on it.

 

[ClosetCaseNerd]

I compared the 4-32 side by side to my ZP5 5-25 .....and the eye box gets tight at the top.

Is the eyebox comparable if you stay around 25x?

 

[dustingaunder]

ZP5 is still easier to get behind but it’s close enough to be a wash.

 

[ClosetCaseNerd]

That is extremely informative, thank you.

 

[CSTactical]

For a gas gun I think the NX8 2.5-20 is an excellent option, and outside of shooting small groups or zeroing I wouldn't be near 20x often.

 

[CSTactical]

I’ve had a few 4-16 ATACRs and have spent time side by side with the NX8s and the entire ATACR line when they first came out.

1. Yes the eyebox is tight. (Tighter than my Kahles 525i and I dislike how tight the eyebox is on my 525i)
2. Yes it’s noticeable and better than the 2.5-20 IQ wise to my eyes. Doesn’t darken at higher magnification as much, doesn’t have the edge distortion as bad as the 2.5-20 does, easier to be behind, better scope overall, wasn’t disappointed by the 4-32 like I was the 2.5-20 etc.

FYI I wouldn’t buy one though if it was my money.
I can’t think of a situation I would want to put up with the compromises of the NX8s to get the higher magnification over the 4-16 ATACR, I would just get another 4-16 ATACR MILXT if I needed something light and compact for the type of shooting I do from the nightforce line.

Really depends on your expectations and needs though as mine will always be different to yours.

I do like the ATACR 4-16 over the NX8 2.5-20 as well

 

[Glassaholic]

I’ve had a few 4-16 ATACRs and have spent time side by side with the NX8s and the entire ATACR line when they first came out.

1. Yes the eyebox is tight. (Tighter than my Kahles 525i and I dislike how tight the eyebox is on my 525i)
2. Yes it’s noticeable and better than the 2.5-20 IQ wise to my eyes. Doesn’t darken at higher magnification as much, doesn’t have the edge distortion as bad as the 2.5-20 does, easier to be behind, better scope overall, wasn’t disappointed by the 4-32 like I was the 2.5-20 etc.

FYI I wouldn’t buy one though if it was my money.
I can’t think of a situation I would want to put up with the compromises of the NX8s to get the higher magnification over the 4-16 ATACR, I would just get another 4-16 ATACR MILXT if I needed something light and compact for the type of shooting I do from the nightforce line.

Really depends on your expectations and needs though as mine will always be different to yours.

Sure would be nice if Nightforce came out with an updated ATACR with 5x or 6x erector. A 4-20 or 3.5-21 would be just the ticket.

OP, all speculation or hope aside, I agree with rydah's comments, just too many compromises in the 2.5-20 which makes the ATACR 4-16 the more attractive option even though it's only 4x erector vs. 8x. There's more to a scope than it's erector But if you absolutely have to have above 20x then maybe the ATACR 5-25 is the right option, also, there is no rule you can't put a 7-35 on a gas gun...

 

[deersniper]

The nice thing about the 2.5-20 isn’t the 20x for me. It’s the 2.5x for hunting. And the shorter length for clip ons.

The 4-16 does have a nicer image and I love the turret on the x42s also.

 

[ClosetCaseNerd]

I don't get how the 2.5-20 always gets dragged back into the conversation.

There is a reason I am not considering it. The reason everyone dislikes about it.

Thats why I'm really trying to limit the conversation to the 4-32 NX8 vs the 4-16 ATACR. On paper they seem the smartest choices for a gas gun if you aren't obsessed with the 2.5-20's ultra short form factor, which I'm not. The weight of the 4-32 is lower than even the 4-16. Same low end mag, similar FOV, but the 4-32 offers more magnification (I was thinking about it exactly as people were saying 4-22x etc). The parts you can't figure out are what aren't in the specs. eye box, IQ, etc etc.

Rydah, Dustin, your input has been exactly what I've been seeking. If others have similar firsthand experience with both I would love if you'd chime in.

 

[Gledeasy]

I have all 3 scopes (NX8 2.5-20 & 4-32, ATACR 4-16x42). The newest to me is the 4-32. I've not mounted it, so my experience with it is just by hand, which is an unfair assessment.

Here's what I feel I can say based on my experience. The ATACR certainly has the best overall glass. I don't feel like the NX8 is bad however. The eye box of the 2.5-20 hasn't been bad after mounting. I assume the 4-32 will be the same. The ATACR certainly isn't any problem.

The 4-32 does darken at higher power, which I'd guess gets you a few more x's than the 2.5-20. On both of course the higher the power the more parallax comes into play.

Like I said, I just got the 4-32. I got it because I liked the 2.5-20 a bunch. I've read the same things comparing the two. Between that and thinking the 4-32 would be better for a bolt gun I got it rather than a second 2.5-20.

Where I like the NX8 better than the ATACR is tube diameter and non-rotating ocular. You also save a few ounces but they're close enough it's a wash to me. The ATACR has better glass and I like the coat finish better on the tube. Also the reticle design is different between the ATACR and NX8. I have the MOAR and I like how they did it better in the ATACR.

IMO, if glass is the most important go ATACR. But if some of the other factors point you towards the NX8 go for it. It's not like the glass is terrible.

 

[LR-Enthusiast]

3-12 Bushnell Lrtsi at camera land..

 

[ClosetCaseNerd]

"I'm not interested in other scopes at this time, though I recognize that there are other options (Vortex AMG, K3-18i, Mark 5, S&B, etc) that could also fit the bill. "

 

[LR-Enthusiast]

Both of the scopes you prefer have a tight eyebox imo... I personally prefer the 3-12 Bushnell LRTSi or a Nightforce 2.5-10x42. Yes I know you preclude those, but IMO 4x+ scopes have more inherent optical compromises.

 

[Bayoubigcat]

Seems like the scope choice conundrum...no scope is perfect and by limiting your options to only these two you will be eliminating several possible contenders.

What is the intended use for this scope (gas gun, light weight and 20-25x aren’t much to go off of)?

 

[USMC_JA]

I know you've said it twice now, but I think it a mistake to complete ignore 3.6 Mk5 for a gas gun. I don't know if you can beat the performance for its price, weight, and footprint.

On the other hand, if what you want is what you want...then I completely get it.

 

[blbennett1288]

Of either NX8 and the 4-16x42 ATACR, the 4-16x42 ATACR is the better scope.

The MK5 is nice, and granted I haven't spent as much time with it, but I don’t think it is on par with the ATACRs

 

[1911hombre]

I have the 4-16x42 F1 ATACR on my LWRC REPR and it is a very sweet piece of glass indeed. I think it's such a nice package BECAUSE of the 4x erector, not in SPITE of it. I know I am not speaking to the OP's original comparo of the two stated optics but the 4-16 ATACR is thought of by many as the unsung hero of the entire ATACR line. It was born to live on a .308 gas gun. Lots of old threads on this.

 

[USMC_JA]

The MK5 is nice, and granted I haven't spent as much time with it, but I don’t think it is on par with the ATACRs

Optically? Perhaps not across the board.

But Compare the weight, footprint, and price. My view is that for a gas gun, the former two things matter.

 

[ClosetCaseNerd]

The rifle in question is a KAC LPR Mod 1 (18" Krieger heavy bbl), with SOPMOD stock. Just a range toy. Probably going to receive an offset T1. Rifle will be used 300-700y.

I am not a fan of Horus reticles (and other various in-house styles) but love the Mil-XT reticle, and have it in other form factors, thus why I am staying away from from the Leupy and Burris. I like sticking with a single reticle between rifles, as it becomes very intuitive to run. I think ultimately it's going to matter less because I also need a scope for a rimfire, and if I order a 4-32 and it doesn't fit the bill for the LPR, it will probably end up on the rimfire.

I'm nearly certain this info will murky the waters. Enjoy!

 

[blbennett1288]

Optically? Perhaps not across the board.

But Compare the weight, footprint, and price. My view is that for a gas gun, the former two things matter.

Glass and better reticle I will pay $500 more for the ATACR.

1.2” and 7.3oz...it’s worth it

 

[chevy_man]

I know you've said it twice now, but I think it a mistake to complete ignore 3.6 Mk5 for a gas gun. I don't know if you can beat the performance for its price, weight, and footprint.

On the other hand, if what you want is what you want...then I completely get it.

That's my choice in mil with a TMR.