Nightforce ATACR vs. the NX8: How big is the difference?

[Sanctify7]

Greetings.

For whatever reason, I have not paid much attention to Nightforce products.
But I have recently had the opportunity to examine a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 for several weeks. My overall impression is favorable. I like the feel and build quality, the illumination works easily for me (some do not like a button design, but I am fine with it), and I found out I do like the option of having green or red--and they are easy to toggle between. The turret clicks are audible enough, and the clicks are tactile in a way that is very controllable for me. They do not 'snap' like they do in my Ares ETR 3-18, but they fit me, in so far as my experience informs. And the parallax focuses down to 11 yards, a big deal for my context. And in hand only, viewing out to 100 yards is quite decent. (I am no expert!)
I am playing around with the idea of owning either this model, the 4-32x50, or the 4-20x50 ATACR.

Here's my question: Have any of you had experience with both the NX8 and the ATACR? Put another way, is the money worth spending for the ATACR over against the NX8? If it is, why?
If you have substantive comments on only one of these models, feel free to inform, but I am more after the advice of those who know both the NX8 and the ATACR.

Thank you in advance. S7

 

[Scotty1]

Another good source for that info would be at the Snipers Hide forum.

 

[Sanctify7]

Another good source for that info would be at the Snipers Hide forum.

The Hide is loaded with information, and I have read a bunch of it. I don’t know if much has been said about the comparison of the models, though. Perhaps it has and I missed it. Thanks.

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

Having owned several NX8 models, for me there's more "boxes checked" on the NX8 versus the ATACR. The bigger noticable difference between the two will be in the quality of the glass & coatings and the perceived light transmission at dark because of the bigger tube. If the folks at Nightforce would make a mixture of the two in a small MPVO ATACR I'd spend the extra grand.

Here's a good article on several aspects of the scope manufacturing world, including quality and light transmission that you may find interesting.

See the light! - Light Transmission - Nightforce Optics

One of the least understood, most abused topics in riflescopes is “light transmission.” You will find the truth quite…enlightening.

www.nightforceoptics.com

 

[Sanctify7]

Having owned several NX8 models, for me there's more "boxes checked" on the NX8 versus the ATACR. The bigger noticable difference between the two will be in the quality of the glass & coatings and the perceived light transmission at dark because of the bigger tube. If the folks at Nightforce would make a mixture of the two in a small MPVO ATACR I'd spend the extra grand.

Here's a good article on several aspects of the scope manufacturing world, including quality and light transmission that you may find interesting.

See the light! - Light Transmission - Nightforce Optics

One of the least understood, most abused topics in riflescopes is “light transmission.” You will find the truth quite…enlightening.

www.nightforceoptics.com

Thanks, A-H. I read this post and the article right away, but I neglected to respond. That article was very helpful. I take it you prefer the NX8 because of different features. Do you mind specifically saying what they are? Also, from what I gather, larger tubes do not impact light transmission at all; that is due to the size of the objective lens and the overall quality and design of the scope. S7

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

Thanks, A-H. I read this post and the article right away, but I neglected to respond. That article was very helpful. I take it you prefer the NX8 because of different features. Do you mind specifically saying what they are? Also, from what I gather, larger tubes do not impact light transmission at all; that is due to the size of the objective lens and the overall quality and design of the scope. S7

Focal plane, low parallax adjustment, tactical exposed turret and tracking quality, glass quality, reticle, small footprint /weight, and because it is a good American company that specializes in making top quality scopes.

 

[Tumblinginflight]

Nightforce is a name that will elicit a lot of positive responses- some absolutely fanatical in fact- but confirmation bias is a heck of a drug. I currently do own an ATACR in 7-35x56 MOAR-T SFP and an NX8 4-32 MOAR FFP and like them each in their respective roles. That said, I've eliminated three 5-25 ATACRs and an NXS to get to this point. One failed to track, one had illumination failure, and two had unforgivably poor glass. Being that their main selling point is supposed to be reliabilty above optical quality or product consistency, I can only scratch my head and wonder if it's just bad luck or...

Mechanically my NX8 and current ATACR- both purchased new- track well. I do believe the ATACR may have a weak erector spring or something amiss, as dialing down and coming back seems to be more consistent for elevation, whereas the NX8 moves EXACTLY in either direction. The dial-past phenomenon has earned the ire of people who tend to trash talk Leupolds in versus conversations, ironically. This does not seem to effect zero retention, however. Both are mounted with 20MOA cant, and are zeroed approximately 20MOA off optical center. Turrets on my NX8 are a firm thump, while the ATACR is closer to a click, with a very small amount of detctable lash. One discarded ATACR had a specacular snap, one had nearly inaudible, muted clicks, and the third fell in between. Both current scopes have very smooth parallax and magnification adjustment, though it is worth noting that the ATACR eyepiece rotates with a change of magnification, and so do any scope caps you might have installed. That can be annoying. I think I read that current 5-25s may eliminate that issue, but you'd need to verify.

Optically.. who knows? One ATACR and the NXS I rejected had such whitewashed, dead images in all manor of shooting conditions that I really couldn't stand to use them. My current NX8 and the ATACR that didn't track have/had blue tinted glass that I find to have a good balance of contrast and resolution, but I know the tint is bothersome to others. My current ATACR has very neutral color, and excellent optical properties otherwise. It compares favorably to other examples of Japanese glass, though I think it still falls behind the G3 and S3. As others have mentioned, NX8 and ATACR allegedly use the same glass, but ATACR uses a longer objective to optimize its properties, and is apochromatically matched to ensure a better image. 5-25 are commonly noted as having the worst image in the ATACR line, and that mirrored my experience overall.

The areas where the ATACR really does come out on top are image brightness, field of view, and eyebox. It is just easier and more pleasant to sit behind for extended sessions. ATACR also does feel robust, and I believe the turrets are larger to match the tube diameter. Not 100% on that one offhand.

For the costs involved, I would probably look carefully at some other brands first. If NF was still on the table, toss a coin between an NX8 and an ATACR that is not a 5-25. Unless given the opportunity to use the optics beforehand to confirm function and glass quality, or if one of the differentiating features was absolutely make or break, I could not say that one is resoundingly better.

 

[BlackICE]

Wow, with seemingly such poor quality control why TF would I pay for a Nightforce when I can get the same variability in quality from a lower cost scope made in China? I have a NXS from around year 2001, more recent buys of a Sighton SIII and Trijicon Credo scopes. I can't say that the much more expensive NXS is any better than the others scopes costing much less than 1/2 the amount and they have better features!

The NSX may be stronger and make a better billyclub.

 

[GeneT]

I have both NX8s and ATACRs. From the feature list you mentioned, it's worth noting that the NX8 (at least the 1-8s that I own) have a *fixed* 100yard parallax - a show stopper for a lot of airgun use. The ATACRs are focusable, but imo larger and heavier than desirable on most airguns. (All but one* of my NF optics are on powder burners.) I have not experienced any of the issues Tumblinginflight mentioned, but I recall that many years ago there were issues with some NXS scope adjustments, so it's possible. The good news is that the NF warranty is reportedly good (never used it myself). I'm sold on the brand in general, but I couldn't find anything from them that I think is well suited to airgun use.

GsT

*I have an NX8 1-8 on my R5M, because I seem to be able to consistently get centered behind the scope with that stock (and only that one) so the parallax adjustment hasn't been a problem (parallax error only exists when, and to the degree that, your eye is misaligned with the optical path). It certianly did not work for me on the Leshiy 2.

 

[RXT0]

NX8, ATACR, ZCO are 3 roughly equally spaced tiers, to my eyes. The problem I had with my NX8 is that it was priced with scopes that give ATACR performance, so I sent it back. NF seems to be priced ~1K above the better values in their competitive set.

 

[steve123]

Nightforce is a name that will elicit a lot of positive responses- some absolutely fanatical in fact- but confirmation bias is a heck of a drug. I currently do own an ATACR in 7-35x56 MOAR-T SFP and an NX8 4-32 MOAR FFP and like them each in their respective roles. That said, I've eliminated three 5-25 ATACRs and an NXS to get to this point. One failed to track, one had illumination failure, and two had unforgivably poor glass. Being that their main selling point is supposed to be reliabilty above optical quality or product consistency, I can only scratch my head and wonder if it's just bad luck or...

Mechanically my NX8 and current ATACR- both purchased new- track well. I do believe the ATACR may have a weak erector spring or something amiss, as dialing down and coming back seems to be more consistent for elevation, whereas the NX8 moves EXACTLY in either direction. The dial-past phenomenon has earned the ire of people who tend to trash talk Leupolds in versus conversations, ironically. This does not seem to effect zero retention, however. Both are mounted with 20MOA cant, and are zeroed approximately 20MOA off optical center. Turrets on my NX8 are a firm thump, while the ATACR is closer to a click, with a very small amount of detctable lash. One discarded ATACR had a specacular snap, one had nearly inaudible, muted clicks, and the third fell in between. Both current scopes have very smooth parallax and magnification adjustment, though it is worth noting that the ATACR eyepiece rotates with a change of magnification, and so do any scope caps you might have installed. That can be annoying. I think I read that current 5-25s may eliminate that issue, but you'd need to verify.

Optically.. who knows? One ATACR and the NXS I rejected had such whitewashed, dead images in all manor of shooting conditions that I really couldn't stand to use them. My current NX8 and the ATACR that didn't track have/had blue tinted glass that I find to have a good balance of contrast and resolution, but I know the tint is bothersome to others. My current ATACR has very neutral color, and excellent optical properties otherwise. It compares favorably to other examples of Japanese glass, though I think it still falls behind the G3 and S3. As others have mentioned, NX8 and ATACR allegedly use the same glass, but ATACR uses a longer objective to optimize its properties, and is apochromatically matched to ensure a better image. 5-25 are commonly noted as having the worst image in the ATACR line, and that mirrored my experience overall.

The areas where the ATACR really does come out on top are image brightness, field of view, and eyebox. It is just easier and more pleasant to sit behind for extended sessions. ATACR also does feel robust, and I believe the turrets are larger to match the tube diameter. Not 100% on that one offhand.

For the costs involved, I would probably look carefully at some other brands first. If NF was still on the table, toss a coin between an NX8 and an ATACR that is not a 5-25. Unless given the opportunity to use the optics beforehand to confirm function and glass quality, or if one of the differentiating features was absolutely make or break, I could not say that one is resoundingly better.

I've always felt like I overpayed for the six NF's I owned over the years. Back then the worst thing about them was the IQ which was medium at best. I distinctly remember comparing my new 1st Gen Vortex Razor 5-20 to my NXS 5.5-22 and thinking that both scopes were much the same in many ways as far as quality and IQ.
My favorite of the bunch was the old F1 3.5-15 but the IQ in it was very plain.

I could go on and on about the other NF as compared to different brands but......

The last comparison was a ATACR 7-35 side by side with my Cronus G2. They were so close in IQ that the owner and friend as well as myself felt there was no difference in IQ. I liked the reticle and turrets more in my scope.

Personally I can't justify the cost to performance ratio of NF vs brands known for much the same performance for less money.

 

[Peskådot671]

I am playing around with the idea of owning either this model, the 4-32x50, or the 4-20x50 ATACR.

They both have different erector assemblies. The NX8 is an 8x erector design and the ATACR is 5x. Should try to keep it apples to apples for a comparison. If I was going to spend ATACR money, I would be looking at something else IMO.

 

[Centercut]

They both have different erector assemblies. The NX8 is an 8x erector design and the ATACR is 5x. Should try to keep it apples to apples for a comparison. If I was going to spend ATACR money, I would be looking at something else IMO.

I’ve recently become a big fan of the Athlon Ares ETR. I have the 4.5-30x and the 3-18x. Both IMHO as good as the Cronus, which as Steve says above are as good as the ATAC-R for much less $$$.

 

[Sanctify7]

I’ve recently become a big fan of the Athlon Ares ETR. I have the 4.5-30x and the 3-18x. Both IMHO as good as the Cronus, which as Steve says above are as good as the ATAC-R for much less $$$.

I have a new Ares ETR 3-18. Thanks for the response.

 

[Sanctify7]

They both have different erector assemblies. The NX8 is an 8x erector design and the ATACR is 5x. Should try to keep it apples to apples for a comparison. If I was going to spend ATACR money, I would be looking at something else IMO.

Copy. Which brings up another question that has been on my mind. If you have two scopes that, for the sake of argument, have the same glass and level of engineering, would the smaller magnification range yield the better image? Or would the scope with the higher mag range have compensated for things with more length, lenses, or whatever?
If my question is put too simplistically or whatever, I get it. Thanks.

 

[Sanctify7]

Nightforce is a name that will elicit a lot of positive responses- some absolutely fanatical in fact- but confirmation bias is a heck of a drug. I currently do own an ATACR in 7-35x56 MOAR-T SFP and an NX8 4-32 MOAR FFP and like them each in their respective roles. That said, I've eliminated three 5-25 ATACRs and an NXS to get to this point. One failed to track, one had illumination failure, and two had unforgivably poor glass. Being that their main selling point is supposed to be reliabilty above optical quality or product consistency, I can only scratch my head and wonder if it's just bad luck or...

Mechanically my NX8 and current ATACR- both purchased new- track well. I do believe the ATACR may have a weak erector spring or something amiss, as dialing down and coming back seems to be more consistent for elevation, whereas the NX8 moves EXACTLY in either direction. The dial-past phenomenon has earned the ire of people who tend to trash talk Leupolds in versus conversations, ironically. This does not seem to effect zero retention, however. Both are mounted with 20MOA cant, and are zeroed approximately 20MOA off optical center. Turrets on my NX8 are a firm thump, while the ATACR is closer to a click, with a very small amount of detctable lash. One discarded ATACR had a specacular snap, one had nearly inaudible, muted clicks, and the third fell in between. Both current scopes have very smooth parallax and magnification adjustment, though it is worth noting that the ATACR eyepiece rotates with a change of magnification, and so do any scope caps you might have installed. That can be annoying. I think I read that current 5-25s may eliminate that issue, but you'd need to verify.

Optically.. who knows? One ATACR and the NXS I rejected had such whitewashed, dead images in all manor of shooting conditions that I really couldn't stand to use them. My current NX8 and the ATACR that didn't track have/had blue tinted glass that I find to have a good balance of contrast and resolution, but I know the tint is bothersome to others. My current ATACR has very neutral color, and excellent optical properties otherwise. It compares favorably to other examples of Japanese glass, though I think it still falls behind the G3 and S3. As others have mentioned, NX8 and ATACR allegedly use the same glass, but ATACR uses a longer objective to optimize its properties, and is apochromatically matched to ensure a better image. 5-25 are commonly noted as having the worst image in the ATACR line, and that mirrored my experience overall.

The areas where the ATACR really does come out on top are image brightness, field of view, and eyebox. It is just easier and more pleasant to sit behind for extended sessions. ATACR also does feel robust, and I believe the turrets are larger to match the tube diameter. Not 100% on that one offhand.

For the costs involved, I would probably look carefully at some other brands first. If NF was still on the table, toss a coin between an NX8 and an ATACR that is not a 5-25. Unless given the opportunity to use the optics beforehand to confirm function and glass quality, or if one of the differentiating features was absolutely make or break, I could not say that one is resoundingly better.

This was very helpful, Tumblinginflight.
I would not have thought—as you didn’t—that NF would have such QC issues. I wonder why the 5-25, in your experience, is the worst of the lot? In any event, I am looking at the 4-20x50 because of the 11-yard parallax. I would also consider the 4-16x42, but it has a 45-yard parallax, as the 5-25 does. The 7-35 is more expensive and the bottom mag is a bit high for me. I am not presently considering in. If a terrific deal came along, I may.

Again, I do not have too much to compare to, but the NX8 2.5-20 was a very nice scope, in my hands and not mounted. The turret clicks were not that crisp or audible, as yours were not (“firm thump”), but they did move nicely and were tractable.
I would like to experience the superior image brightness and eye box. But for FOV, did you mean Depth of Field?

P671 also advised to look at other scopes, considering the money the ATACR costs. I still want to check one out, but I am not so sure I want to own one now. We’ll see.

A scope that very, very few have anything negative to say about is the ZCO 4-20x50 (or 5-25). It is another jump in price, however, and I think the parallax is 25 yards. I have also read on SH that the March Genesis image is outstanding. I think Steve 123 says about the same. But again, we are looking at an even more specialized tool and more money once again. Again, thanks. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

I have both NX8s and ATACRs. From the feature list you mentioned, it's worth noting that the NX8 (at least the 1-8s that I own) have a *fixed* 100yard parallax - a show stopper for a lot of airgun use. The ATACRs are focusable, but imo larger and heavier than desirable on most airguns. (All but one* of my NF optics are on powder burners.) I have not experienced any of the issues Tumblinginflight mentioned, but I recall that many years ago there were issues with some NXS scope adjustments, so it's possible. The good news is that the NF warranty is reportedly good (never used it myself). I'm sold on the brand in general, but I couldn't find anything from them that I think is well suited to airgun use.

GsT

*I have an NX8 1-8 on my R5M, because I seem to be able to consistently get centered behind the scope with that stock (and only that one) so the parallax adjustment hasn't been a problem (parallax error only exists when, and to the degree that, your eye is misaligned with the optical path). It certianly did not work for me on the Leshiy 2.

Thanks, GsT.
Fixed or high parallax setting is an Airgun-killer for most, including me. I would rather not take the chance on having the right set up to make it work. How do you like your other NX8s? The parallax goes down to 11 yards on the 2.5-20 and 4-32. What am I missing in what you said? And weight and other things aside, do you find the IQ better on the ATACRs over the NX8s? S7

 

[Sanctify7]

I've always felt like I overpayed for the six NF's I owned over the years. Back then the worst thing about them was the IQ which was medium at best. I distinctly remember comparing my new 1st Gen Vortex Razor 5-20 to my NXS 5.5-22 and thinking that both scopes were much the same in many ways as far as quality and IQ.
My favorite of the bunch was the old F1 3.5-15 but the IQ in it was very plain.

I could go on and on about the other NF as compared to different brands but......

The last comparison was a ATACR 7-35 side by side with my Cronus G2. They were so close in IQ that the owner and friend as well as myself felt there was no difference in IQ. I liked the reticle and turrets more in my scope.

Personally I can't justify the cost to performance ratio of NF vs brands known for much the same performance for less money.

Steve, I saw your post after others, for whatever reason. I already mentioned you (re: the March Genesis) in another response. While I have your ear, did you ever get behind a ZCO? Thanks for the input. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

So far, and for airguns, if picking between the NX8 and the ATACR, I am thinking the responses point to looking for a good deal for one of the NX8s. There has been no strong ‘get the ATACR’ thrust. I appreciate all the information thus far.

 

[GeneT]

Thanks, GsT.
Fixed or high parallax setting is an Airgun-killer for most, including me. I would rather not take the chance on having the right set up to make it work. How do you like your other NX8s? The parallax goes down to 11 yards on the 2.5-20 and 4-32. What am I missing in what you said? And weight and other things aside, do you find the IQ better on the ATACRs over the NX8s? S7

I do find the image quality slightly better, but you really have to look through a lot of scopes to know the difference. The difference between mediocre optics and fine optics are things like aberration at the edge of the field of vision as well as how well they "collect light" (which is actually, how little they attenuate light). The NX8 and ATACR are pretty on-par in those categories, and at least for my airgun shooting, pretty equivalent. For airguns I would not spend the extra money on an ATACR, even though I think they're excellent scopes. Most of the optical aberrations I've mentioned don't matter at all until extended (powder-burner) range. Adjustments have been uniformly excellent. I actually use airguns to do a "box test" (duckduckgo if you don't know what that is) on any new scope I evaluate and the NF scopes all seem to come in "perfect". Again, I'm not casting shade on those that have had differing experience, but NF has yet to disappoint in my case.

All that said, NF doesn't match the optical quality of Swarovski, but sadly Swarovski doesn't make good targets scopes...

GsT