Rifle Scopes S&B Ultra Short and 4-16 ATACR Comparison?
- Thread starter B-P-UU
- Start date
So lets throw a new contender into the ring... S&B US vs NF 4-16 vs Vudu 5-25.
As for the original discussion: After using the optics more often...I would recommend the NF to most people when asked to pick between them. It really doesn't give anything up for someone that shoots with in 1000 yards FOR THE PRICE. Beyond 1000 yards, some prefer a little more mag but it really comes down to the shooter.
The 520US will stay on my .300 because I prefer a little more mag, but I want a second 4-16 for another rifle.
As for the original discussion: After using the optics more often...I would recommend the NF to most people when asked to pick between them. It really doesn't give anything up for someone that shoots with in 1000 yards FOR THE PRICE. Beyond 1000 yards, some prefer a little more mag but it really comes down to the shooter.
The 520US will stay on my .300 because I prefer a little more mag, but I want a second 4-16 for another rifle.
I've seen no evidence of this? Can you refer me to info?
Very early initial impressions.
I’d tip the overall level of refinement ever so slightly in favour of the S&B. All the controls have that distinctly German manufactured feel to them - parallax may as well be a rangefinder it's so accurate. The turrets on this example are the 14mil/rev version and I much prefer them to the 18mil/rev model- just better spacing between the clicks. The MTC feature is also no problem - I was expecting it to offer more resistance but it did not hinder me being able to quickly dial to a specific point at all.
The S&B glass is better than the NF, but it's really just in the area of resolution where the Schmidt can resolve just a touch more fine detail. The NF isn’t far behind by any means though.
The eye-box is a different matter - The S&B eye-box is considerably more flexible than the NF, which is already good. I’m not sure this makes any practical difference but it’s a noticeable difference between the scopes.
I rate the NF turret feel ahead of the S&B, the numbers are also much bigger and the spacing is about optimal on the NF. The Zero stop setup is simpler on the Schmidt.
Illumination goes slightly to the Schmidt as I find the NF to be too bright on all but the lowest settings - the S&B has the opposite problem in that only the higher settings seem to produce good visibility in low light settings. Illumination placement is better on the NF, but the controls are superior on the Schmidt (push button v dial).
I’m starting to realise that the fuss made about reticles is exactly that. For comp shooting I’m currently using the H59 (in the Bushnell XRS-2) but i really have absolutely no problem transitioning between the Mil-R in the NF (won a national title with this reticle) and the MSR in the Schmidt (I have extensive time behind the MSR as my 5-25 had the same reticle) - yes the H59 is ‘better’ for comps but for general purpose shooting the MSR and Mil-R are excellent - and if hunting is on the cards I much prefer the cleaner lines and thicker stadia in the Mil-R and MSR.
Possibly the biggest difference between the S&B and the NF is the low end field of view - the Schmidt at 3x is ridiculously good with a very noticeable improvement over the NF, but then the Schmidt can't be mounted as low due to the larger objective - so it's all a trade off.
It’s way too early to say which of these two I’d pick if I could only have one - the NF is a good three years old and it’s performed remarkably well in that time. I’m just getting started with the 3-20 but the early markers are excellent.
Tracking and range time next week.
I’d tip the overall level of refinement ever so slightly in favour of the S&B. All the controls have that distinctly German manufactured feel to them - parallax may as well be a rangefinder it's so accurate. The turrets on this example are the 14mil/rev version and I much prefer them to the 18mil/rev model- just better spacing between the clicks. The MTC feature is also no problem - I was expecting it to offer more resistance but it did not hinder me being able to quickly dial to a specific point at all.
The S&B glass is better than the NF, but it's really just in the area of resolution where the Schmidt can resolve just a touch more fine detail. The NF isn’t far behind by any means though.
The eye-box is a different matter - The S&B eye-box is considerably more flexible than the NF, which is already good. I’m not sure this makes any practical difference but it’s a noticeable difference between the scopes.
I rate the NF turret feel ahead of the S&B, the numbers are also much bigger and the spacing is about optimal on the NF. The Zero stop setup is simpler on the Schmidt.
Illumination goes slightly to the Schmidt as I find the NF to be too bright on all but the lowest settings - the S&B has the opposite problem in that only the higher settings seem to produce good visibility in low light settings. Illumination placement is better on the NF, but the controls are superior on the Schmidt (push button v dial).
I’m starting to realise that the fuss made about reticles is exactly that. For comp shooting I’m currently using the H59 (in the Bushnell XRS-2) but i really have absolutely no problem transitioning between the Mil-R in the NF (won a national title with this reticle) and the MSR in the Schmidt (I have extensive time behind the MSR as my 5-25 had the same reticle) - yes the H59 is ‘better’ for comps but for general purpose shooting the MSR and Mil-R are excellent - and if hunting is on the cards I much prefer the cleaner lines and thicker stadia in the Mil-R and MSR.
Possibly the biggest difference between the S&B and the NF is the low end field of view - the Schmidt at 3x is ridiculously good with a very noticeable improvement over the NF, but then the Schmidt can't be mounted as low due to the larger objective - so it's all a trade off.
It’s way too early to say which of these two I’d pick if I could only have one - the NF is a good three years old and it’s performed remarkably well in that time. I’m just getting started with the 3-20 but the early markers are excellent.
Tracking and range time next week.
Last edited:
All the published specs appear to represent the same overall length? The difference in ring mounting realestate relates to the illumination control.
I could be wrong. All of mine now are non lit 5-20. I have 6 -8 of them. I had a lit one that was longer. It may have been a 3-20. Cannot recall now. It was several years ago. Sorry if I gave incorrect information. It was from memory.
I currently own both, my NF with a Tremor 3, and my S&B 5-20 US with an H59 reticle. So the reticle are similar. Me personally, I couldn’t tell you that there’s a huge difference in quality between the two. Both are outstanding optics. There’s a small difference in glass quality with the advantage going to the Schmidt, but it’s so small that, to me, it’s just not enough to make me completely disregard my ATACR. I do agree you can get a NF with a super nice Spuhr Mount for the same price as the Schmidt. Just something to consider.
Reticle choice is also very subjective...
Yes- S&B glass is fantastic but their reticle choices are very limited IMHO.
NF reticles appeal to my eye, it’s a robust scope, very well priced & glass very close to S&B if not as good...
NF all the way, every day...
Yes- S&B glass is fantastic but their reticle choices are very limited IMHO.
NF reticles appeal to my eye, it’s a robust scope, very well priced & glass very close to S&B if not as good...
NF all the way, every day...
Sorry to resurrect this old thread. I was comparing these 2 optics a year or 2 back and went with the US, But within a month of ownership a Medical issue hit suddenly and I had to sell it. Now that I am recouping I am back in the market and comparing these 2 again. I cannot get hands with an Atacr, the SB was amazing, Is the Majority out here still feel the NF is just as Good, except in the Eyebox area?
I had both scopes and ran them side by side many times.
Overall if price was no different I'd very slightly favour the S&B, but the differences are small and both are excellent optics.
Overall if price was no different I'd very slightly favour the S&B, but the differences are small and both are excellent optics.
I sold my S&B to free up some funding and replaced it with a 4-16. I prefer the package and extra magnification of the S&B. It was my favorite optic ever up to this point.
With that said, the 4-16 works perfectly fine and I don't ever feel like its lacking in my use case. Even with the unpopular Mil-R reticle! The extra magnification may be missed if you shoot beyond 1000 with great conditions though. Sure I miss the S&B, but I am at a point in life where that saved $1000 matters a helluva lot more. Unless you can justify the extra coin, don't worry about it.
