Which has the better glass? Or, compare the NX8 to a Leuppy Mk5 3-18 or Vudu 5-25.
thanks!
thanks!
- Thread starter Smokerroller
- Start date
The ATACR has better glass than the NX8.
Seems like the past couple weeks have had so many asking this question. OP check out this thread
Rifle Scopes - NX8 versus ATACR advise needed
I am considering either the NX8 F1 2.5-20 or 4-32 as well as the ATACR F1 4-16x42 or 4-20x50 for use on an 308 ar10. I plan to shoot from 100 - 1000 on steel targets (IDPA torso), mostly daytime and maybe even/dusk shooting. Looking at a mil-c or mil-xt reticle on whichever scope I choose. The...
www.snipershide.com 
The search bar will take you far my friend, but I’ve had a few beers now so I’ll continue. I’m confused how this is even a question? ATACR for sure. If you’re looking at the 2.5-20 you won’t be too happy if you’ve looked through other highish end scopes. The 4-32 NX8 is a great scope, still no ATACR, but I’d say comparable to the 3.6-18 MK5 when using the 4-32 in 4-20x with some tunneling from like 4 to 4.5ish. Up to 24x it still pretty good but not awesome. Past 24-32x it’s super touchy and glass really diminishes. I’ve never looked through a 5-25 voodoo. Pure glass quality and illuminated reticle isn’t necessary for you I’d go with a Leopold MK5 5-25 assuming you can find a reticle you like.
I have had a few of all the scopes you have listed. If illumination is not a must I have this in the order in which I found them to be best to worst...
Mk5 HD 3.6-18 > 4-32 NX8 F1 > VUDU 5-25.
I actually compared the mk5 to a 4-16 ATACR and a TT 3-15M. I found the TT glass to barely edge out the mk5 in low light and the ATACR was about 99.7% as good as the mk5 in low light. Now the mk5hd I had did show a slight bit of CA where the other two had none. I ended up keeping the 4-16x42 ATACR out of those 3. I still have a 4-32 NX8, but it will be leaving in a few weeks.
I parted ways with my mk5hds because of the reticles and lack of illumination.
Mk5 HD 3.6-18 > 4-32 NX8 F1 > VUDU 5-25.
I actually compared the mk5 to a 4-16 ATACR and a TT 3-15M. I found the TT glass to barely edge out the mk5 in low light and the ATACR was about 99.7% as good as the mk5 in low light. Now the mk5hd I had did show a slight bit of CA where the other two had none. I ended up keeping the 4-16x42 ATACR out of those 3. I still have a 4-32 NX8, but it will be leaving in a few weeks.
I parted ways with my mk5hds because of the reticles and lack of illumination.
Last edited:
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Why did you keep the 4-16 ATACR over the MK5?
Thank you to all those who issued a thoughtful reply. This is a forum, after all.
Everyone's eyes are different. I have had three 3.6-18 mk5s and sold every one. I like everything but the glass in them. I actually prefer the glass in my Nxs to them. I just bought a 4-32 nx8 after checking out several in person. To my eye it is better than the nxs or mk5. I suggest looking through all of them before making a purchase.
Illumination
Proven tracking
Proven durability
Desired reticle
Probably the biggest reason is I decided to streamline my optics to all ATACRS with the same reticle. I can pick any rifle I own now and I know the reticle like the back of my hand. I figure the more variables I can remove/control the better off I am.
Similar threads
