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

[Airgun-hobbyist]

S7 what is the minimum yardage that you'll be shooting a lot? Don't discount the low parallax adjustment of 25 yards, as it works for most hunting and bench shooting. Unless doing field target competition with close parallax wheel ranging or 10 yard bench rest work a lot, a 25 yard parallax adjustment will not be much of a hindrance. I bench shoot from 40 to 200+ yards and hunt with the NX8 1-8×24 with it's 125 yards of fixed parallax by simply turning down the power some for the closer range shots to make the image crisper.

 

[Sanctify7]

S7 what is the minimum yardage that you'll be shooting a lot? Don't discount the low parallax adjustment of 25 yards, as it works for most hunting and bench shooting. Unless doing field target competition with close parallax wheel ranging or 10 yard bench rest work a lot, a 25 yard parallax adjustment will not be much of a hindrance. I bench shoot from 40 to 200+ yards and hunt with the NX8 1-8×24 with it's 125 yards of fixed parallax by simply turning down the power some for the closer range shots to make the image crisper.

My present shooting distances are very modest, AH, all being inside of 50 yards. My thing is that pests suddenly show up at some extremely close ranges, like five or ten yards and a bit. Also, I like the option to shoot in my basement, and nine or ten yards is the maximum I can go. I have a Helix 4-16x44, with a parallax of 15 yards. I can use it in my ‘range,’ but it does not yield the crystal clear image on mid or higher magnification that my 10-yard parallax/focus scopes do. If I want to see my target perfectly, it cannot do it, at least not with my eyes. I need about an 8- or 10-magnification setting, and at that point the target particulars get blurry and the fun goes out of the enterprise. But yes, the Helix at 15 yards (parallax) and my Razor LHT at 20 yards are still very usable at closer distances, especially on lower power. They are simply not ideal. I do not do any type of competitive shooting; I am a country backyard pester and target shooter. My preference for higher-end scopes is really more than is justifiable, and I have freely said this before. A simple Hawke Airmax would do, but then there is turrets, overall quality, etc.
At one point I wanted the March 1-10x24, in part because of its light weight and ability to perfectly focus down to a few yards. And I like the concept of the March 1.5-15, but people have complained about the glass. Thanks for asking. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

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

Thanks for this answer, GsT. You made the image point, but you also confirm what I said above: the NX8 seems to be the winner for me, all things being considered. One thing I want to mention: There is a rather lengthy review of the NX8 by Glassaholic on Snipers Hide. The model he initially used had serious optical problems on the outer portion of the glass. Then he got another model of the same 4-32 NX8, and he changed his comments to very positive ones. He left off, if I remember, saying that he did not know if he first had a bad scope, if the QC was all over the place, if NF fixed something, or whatever.
I am glad that you have had all good experiences with NF.

Also, I always look over the Swaro lines. They have some really nice scopes from what others say. S7

Edit: Here's the link to this 2019 review of the NX8 by Glass, if anyone cares: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/nightforce-nx8-2-5-20x50-initial-thoughts.6958517/

Edit: As I mentioned in another post on this thread, Glassaholic reviewed the NX8 2.5-20, and not the 4-32, as I erroneously state above.

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

S7, I'm probably in the same predicament as you with the eye's. You will find the FFP 2.5-20×50 a good little scope for your intended use, your eyes, and worth the money. Unless you want the super high magnification at 32×, then the 2.5-20 will give you a good usable reticle at a usable power level (3-4×) with a better field of view for hunting and shooting critters in close. Whereas with the 4-32 your eyes may need the lower power turned to 5-6× to make the reticle big enough to be seen well and this scope cuts about half the field of view than the other. I use the 4-32 strictly for target shooting. Both of mine will focus down to just below 10 yards, are clear all the way out to the very edges. The optical quality and "light gathering" allows me to see into a dark room that I otherwise cannot see into clearly and I can see into the trees at 240 yards at dark, which is good enough for my hunting and shooting purposes.

There's a lot of scope manufacturing going on around the globe with a lot of good qualities to choose from, and nearly all have a lifetime warranty. And if you get one that you feel like the glass is "bad" or something else that you don't like about it, send it in under warranty and exchange it for one that has been looked at and inspected here. That will give the manufacturer opportunity to correct the deficiency with the scope's going forward.

 

[Peskådot671]

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.

Shorter bodied scopes with high erector assemblies like the NX8 usually compromise in certain areas such as narrow depth of field, tighter eyebox, finicky parallax, and edge distortion especially in the lower magnification range. That review by Glassaholic on Snipershide that you linked mentions this as well.

A scope design with a lower erector assembly should have better IQ. I have never heard of a scope design with a high erector assembly in a long scope tube above 14 inches.

 

[steve123]

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

I played with my friends 1st gen from the first shipment also owned by the same guy that has the ATACR I mentioned. The turrets on his were not great to put it nicely and glass IQ wasn't excellent either. He had to send it back right away. I can't remember what the outcome was. Later generations had improved turret feel.

But a few years after that I got to do a side by side behind the ZCO 4-20, a S&B 5-20 ultra short, and my S&B 5-25, all on 20x. Eh, the difference was so close I just called it a draw.

The only scopes I rate having better IQ than these are, a Swaro X5i, Tangent Theta, March Genesis, March HM 10-60, a Sightron fixed power 36x(I know hard to believe but comparing against my Genesis it was as nice at 50Y), and actually my ETR 10-60 is really good too. But this is for my eyes and in that order.

 

[Tumblinginflight]

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

It would have been more helpful for me to clarify that my observations were strung out over years, not consecutive purchases, exchanges, what have you. I expect the 5-25 is probably their most popular model in the lineup, so improvements and sample variation over time could account for some of the inconsistency I saw. The worst glass was from 5+ years ago. The failed illumination was around three. It would flicker or go out entirely under recoil, but could be turned back on. I believe it was a known issue in that period of time. That unit I actually traded with full disclosure to an aquiantance who swore he'd never use the illumination. The one that did not track well was the newest of the reject pile, just over a year ago, and I was able to return that to the brick and mortar store where purchased. I managed to avoid NF customer service, so nothing to add there.

I did mean field of view. It's tricky to do apples to apples since min and max FOV are listed at different magnification settings for the NX8 and ATACR, respectivelly, and the numbers are not necessarily linear. The observation is that at marked, advertised magnification settings, the ATACR does have a slightly wider FOV. In terms of depth of field, both perform well and similarly to each other. They are forgiving but tunable, which is to say that you can easily shoot different distances without adjusting and not even really notice the difference, but you can play with the parallax to get a very crisp image as well. As best I can evaluate, perfect focus and parallax elimination are one in the same, as one would hope.

My only ZCO experience was behind a friend's 4-20. It was nice. Excellent quality feel to the controls, and fit and finish was terrific. I was not blown away by the glass, but it was not set up for my eye. It did have just a tinge of brown that is synonymous with Euro glass, otherwise a very crisp and "poppy" image. I'm waiting on a backorder of my own, but told by the vendor it will probably be after SHOT Show. Never had the opportunity to check out the higher end Marches.

 

[Sanctify7]

I played with my friends 1st gen from the first shipment also owned by the same guy that has the ATACR I mentioned. The turrets on his were not great to put it nicely and glass IQ wasn't excellent either. He had to send it back right away. I can't remember what the outcome was. Later generations had improved turret feel.

But a few years after that I got to do a side by side behind the ZCO 4-20, a S&B 5-20 ultra short, and my S&B 5-25, all on 20x. Eh, the difference was so close I just called it a draw.

The only scopes I rate having better IQ than these are, a Swaro X5i, Tangent Theta, March Genesis, March HM 10-60, a Sightron fixed power 36x(I know hard to believe but comparing against my Genesis it was as nice at 50Y), and actually my ETR 10-60 is really good too. But this is for my eyes and in that order.

This data is very helpful to me. Now and again I go looking for a post that has you offering a similar appraisal of high-end scopes. I nicely have it here at the ready. Thanks again. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

It would have been more helpful for me to clarify that my observations were strung out over years, not consecutive purchases, exchanges, what have you. I expect the 5-25 is probably their most popular model in the lineup, so improvements and sample variation over time could account for some of the inconsistency I saw. The worst glass was from 5+ years ago. The failed illumination was around three. It would flicker or go out entirely under recoil, but could be turned back on. I believe it was a known issue in that period of time. That unit I actually traded with full disclosure to an aquiantance who swore he'd never use the illumination. The one that did not track well was the newest of the reject pile, just over a year ago, and I was able to return that to the brick and mortar store where purchased. I managed to avoid NF customer service, so nothing to add there.

I did mean field of view. It's tricky to do apples to apples since min and max FOV are listed at different magnification settings for the NX8 and ATACR, respectivelly, and the numbers are not necessarily linear. The observation is that at marked, advertised magnification settings, the ATACR does have a slightly wider FOV. In terms of depth of field, both perform well and similarly to each other. They are forgiving but tunable, which is to say that you can easily shoot different distances without adjusting and not even really notice the difference, but you can play with the parallax to get a very crisp image as well. As best I can evaluate, perfect focus and parallax elimination are one in the same, as one would hope.

My only ZCO experience was behind a friend's 4-20. It was nice. Excellent quality feel to the controls, and fit and finish was terrific. I was not blown away by the glass, but it was not set up for my eye. It did have just a tinge of brown that is synonymous with Euro glass, otherwise a very crisp and "poppy" image. I'm waiting on a backorder of my own, but told by the vendor it will probably be after SHOT Show. Never had the opportunity to check out the higher end Marches.

This clarifies things well. All has been logged. I am going to relook at how NF lists the DOF for these two lines.

I hope your ZCO becomes a nice experience. (You did not explicitly say so, but I gather this is the scope on backorder.) Peering through someone else’s scope and not changing the diopter could make a difference. You will see when you get your own. It’s something to look forward to, from where I sit.

I did not know about the brownish tinge on European glass. There is so much I have not seen yet. Yes. I have heard that the ZCO fit and finish is terrific (the article by Glass, and from others).

When I bought a March 4.5-28x52 within this last year, I was not blown away by the glass either. But this could be because I only peered through it inside of 100 yards and did not allow the unit to ‘stretch out its legs’? Neither was my test anything resembling comprehensive. I was not terribly disappointed, but I sent it back for other reasons. Thanks. S7


Edit: I meant that I would check out the NF listing on FOV, not DOF.

 

[Peskådot671]

S7,

I'm trying to recall if I mentioned this to you before. These are some of the scopes I currently own:

- ZCO 4-20×50 which is mounted on my AAA Paradigm .22cal.

- March FX High Master 4.5-28×52 mounted on my AAA Evol Mini .22cal.

- Nightforce NX8 F1 2.5-20X50 mounted on my Leshiy 2 .30cal.

I've never looked through or fondled any of the NF ATACR line of scopes. Like you, I've never read reviews or heard people say "Just get an ATACR" thrust. I guess when you delve into that $3000 + range, the ol' cliché of "diminishing returns" comes to mind. That's a whole different topic on its own and is individually based.

The ZCO 420 is at the top in most areas especially IQ. I know you had concerns about DOF. In my opinion, for within airgun ranges (100 yards), it doesn't matter to me so much. You'll still have to adjust the parallax/side focus on all of them to get a clear image. For PB ranges above 100/200 yards is where DOF matters especially under time constraints where you transition within different distances without having to adjust parallax so much. I guess the only concern for you is the minimum 25 yard side focus if you shoot indoors at 10 yards at high magnification.

I'm very satisfied with my NF NX8 F1 2.5-20X50 that I have no thoughts of getting rid of it. I also wouldn't hesitate on getting the NF NX8 4-32x50 if I knew what airgun to put it on. I heard a lot of people say it's better than the 2.5-20x50 in regards to IQ. In regards to the March-FX 4.5-28×52, I thought the IQ in regards to resolution would be better but I'm not that disappointed to get rid of it. I really like the FML-TR1 reticle on it.

 

[Sanctify7]

S7,

I'm trying to recall if I mentioned this to you before. These are some of the scopes I currently own:

- ZCO 4-20×50 which is mounted on my AAA Paradigm .22cal.

- March FX High Master 4.5-28×52 mounted on my AAA Evol Mini .22cal.

- Nightforce NX8 F1 2.5-20X50 mounted on my Leshiy 2 .30cal.

I've never looked through or fondled any of the NF ATACR line of scopes. Like you, I've never read reviews or heard people say "Just get an ATACR" thrust. I guess when you delve into that $3000 + range, the ol' cliché of "diminishing returns" comes to mind. That's a whole different topic on its own and is individually based.

The ZCO 420 is at the top in most areas especially IQ. I know you had concerns about DOF. In my opinion, for within airgun ranges (100 yards), it doesn't matter to me so much. You'll still have to adjust the parallax/side focus on all of them to get a clear image. For PB ranges above 100/200 yards is where DOF matters especially under time constraints where you transition within different distances without having to adjust parallax so much. I guess the only concern for you is the minimum 25 yard side focus if you shoot indoors at 10 yards at high magnification.

I'm very satisfied with my NF NX8 F1 2.5-20X50 that I have no thoughts of getting rid of it. I also wouldn't hesitate on getting the NF NX8 4-32x50 if I knew what airgun to put it on. I heard a lot of people say it's better than the 2.5-20x50 in regards to IQ. In regards to the March-FX 4.5-28×52, I thought the IQ in regards to resolution would be better but I'm not that disappointed to get rid of it. I really like the FML-TR1 reticle on it.

Greetings, P671.

You read my mind. I know that you, as Steve123, had mentioned your scopes somewhere, but I did not remember where and was not going to trouble you. But you have given me what I was after. All I recalled was that you had some nice setups. Now I have these too at the ready in this thread.

Again, I would still like to handle and look through an ATACR, then I will have had some experience with it and can use that to compare it to the NX8. I have heard by someone somewhere that the ATACR 4-16x42 may be the "best ATACR Nightforce ever made." I cannot comment on this, but that 45-yard parallax is a bit much. So I look at prices for the 4-20x50 instead.

Steve’s prior experience with the ZCO is a bit different than most that I have read, but that was when ZCO was a nascent company, if I recall. I am glad you find the ZCO to be top notch, especially in IQ. I want to think that there are some scopes out there that deliver great images.

I copy on the DOF and parallax. Yes, the 25-yard parallax of the ZCO 4-20 is a bit of a dissuasion, but I am still interested in it. I could put it on another gun, perhaps. To clarify, I do not need high mag in the basement, maybe 10x or so. How do you think the ZCO would do here? Does is parallax down to better than the advertised 25 yards?

I am also glad you like your overall experience with the NX8 2.5-20. I think it is my favorite overall scope so far. I cannot remember enough of the March 4.5-28x52 controls to compare, but I am sure they are better. Yes, I had the TR1 reticle too and liked it.

But just about everything about the NX8 was satisfying: feel in hand, controls, knob tensions, and IQ. And again, I really took to the red and green illumination options. (Someone on AGN dropped the price of a 2.5-20 down to $1,000 recently, but it got snatched in a hurry.)

I also wondered about the 4-32, and am especially intrigued now that you say some hold that it is better than the 2.5-20 in IQ.
Also, what reticles do you have on your NX8 and your ZCO? I had the MOAR for the former. And does your NX8 parallax below 11 yards? Some have said theirs goes to ten, I think.

Someone said something about the NX8's ability to parallax/focus to 10 yards, I think. What is your experience. We know it says 11 yards.

Thanks a bunch. S7

 

[JungleShooter]

Clickbait, clickbait, clickbait.


And "click" — I did it.
Here I am.





Reading posts like this is the proverbial cool-aid — just goes down like nothing, and leaves you wanting more.....

Of course, it's S7 who started this — I already know this will be good and deep....

It's half past midnight, why am I not in bed....?
Oh, right, cool-aid.
Got it.

 

[JungleShooter]

Besides my self-incriminating comments above —
I'd like to confess a change of mind after reading the linked article from SH:

● I'm a short gun person — bullpups all the way (don't turn this into an off-color joke).
● And naturally, I was going for the short scopes as well — Discovery VT-3, Vector Veyron, Airmax Compact, Maven RS.4, Delta Stryker HD, NX8, March Compact, etc.
Bought some, fantasized over others, loved them all.


"WHY," I asked myself, "WHY would anyone buy a large scope if they could have a small scope with the same specs?!?"

➠ The article by Lowlight explains WHY: Scopes with a shorter build, yet a fairly high magnification ratio (8-fold, 10-fold), will likely have:
▪ a more sensitive parallax adjustment ➠ requiring refocusing every time the quarry moves just a little bit closer/farther
▪ a smaller eye box ➠ requiring a more precise placement of the eye in order to get a full scope image
▪ optical problems ➠ image quality, distortions, whatever, it's hard to quantify, but to correct them is hard to do, so either cost goes up, or quality goes down with short scopes.


➠ So, now I'm done with short scopes (unless they have to fit on a pistol or pistol-carbine with folding stock).

Matthias




And now I'm going to bed for real!

 

[Peskådot671]

Greetings, P671.

You read my mind. I know that you, as Steve123, had mentioned your scopes somewhere, but I did not remember where and was not going to trouble you. But you have given me what I was after. All I recalled was that you had some nice setups. Now I have these too at the ready in this thread.

Again, I would still like to handle and look through an ATACR, then I will have had some experience with it and can use that to compare it to the NX8. I have heard by someone somewhere that the ATACR 4-16x42 may be the "best ATACR Nightforce ever made." I cannot comment on this, but that 45-yard parallax is a bit much. So I look at prices for the 4-20x50 instead

It wouldn't surprise me that some would say that their ATACR 4-16x42 would be their best in IQ. It only has a 4x erector design.

Steve’s prior experience with the ZCO is a bit different than most that I have read, but that was when ZCO was a nascent company, if I recall. I am glad you find the ZCO to be top notch, especially in IQ. I want to think that there are some scopes out there that deliver great images

I copy on the DOF and parallax. Yes, the 25-yard parallax of the ZCO 4-20 is a bit of a dissuasion, but I am still interested in it. I could put it on another gun, perhaps. To clarify, I do not need high mag in the basement, maybe 10x or so. How do you think the ZCO would do here? Does is parallax down to better than the advertised 25 yards?

I'll check that for you in a few days and verify. I'm currently working the night shift in a different time zone and sleep during the days. Most of the distances I shoot at are beyond 25 yards. The only time I shoot below 25 yards is at the occasional pest (chickens). I drop the magnification and parallax at the lowest setting which gets the job done. It's not to admire the image quality but it's good enough to make the kill shot. If it's for target shooting at 10 yards, I can understand everyone's point on having an adjustable parallax setting down to 10 yards.

I am also glad you like your overall experience with the NX8 2.5-20. I think it is my favorite overall scope so far. I cannot remember enough of the March 4.5-28x52 controls to compare, but I am sure they are better. Yes, I had the TR1 reticle too and liked it.

But just about everything about the NX8 was satisfying: feel in hand, controls, knob tensions, and IQ. And again, I really took to the red and green illumination options. (Someone on AGN dropped the price of a 2.5-20 down to $1,000 recently, but it got snatched in a hurry.)

The only issue with the NF NX8 2.5-20 is that you have to adjust the diopter properly to clear up edge distortion in the lower magnification range. Once I did that, it was fine. Just remember that in Glassaholic's review on SH, the first sample he received wasn't favorable. To quote him because it's easier;

"EDIT 03/30/2022: I have now had the opportunity to review another NX8 2.5-20x50 scope and this "new" version does not exhibit any of the edge distortion that was prevalent in my original copy, in fact, the differences are so great I almost feel like NF changed their optical formula, it felt like two different scopes. This was either a QC issue that my early model had, or this is representative of some pretty significant sample variance. This would also explain why some NX8 2.5-20 users have declared their scopes to be similar to my original copy (significant edge distortion) while others have not had this issue".

Personally, if I was to purchase another 2.5-20, it would be one that's made after April 2022. If you're getting a used one, I would suggest looking through it first but I know that's not always possible. The turret feel on the NX8 is not as audible or tactile. It you're a turret purist, it might not be for you. I've read other reviews that the ATACR series has a better feel but can't confirm that.

I also wondered about the 4-32, and am especially intrigued now that you say some hold that it is better than the 2.5-20 in IQ.
Also, what reticles do you have on your NX8 and your ZCO? I had the MOAR for the former. And does your NX8 parallax below 11 yards? Some have said theirs goes to ten, I think.

Someone said something about the NX8's ability to parallax/focus to 10 yards, I think. What is your experience. We know it says 11 yards.

Thanks a bunch. S7

I've read several reviews that the 4-32 was better in regards to IQ. I have the MIL-C reticle on my 2.5-20. My ZCO 420 has the MPCT1 reticle. Like I said earlier, I'll check the parallax on my NX8 if it focuses below 11 yards above 10x magnification when time permits.

 

[steve123]

From past experience using my S&B PM2 5-25x56 which has 10M parallax, an object at 10Y is only a hair out of focus on 25x. Dialing down to 15x or so clears the image back up nicely and is not out of focus on 10x.

Or at say 10.5 yards it's focused pretty good at 25x.

So Peska, how would you rate the IQ in the March 4.5-28 compared to your other scopes? It's supposed to be the best at less optical compromise as far as the short Marches FFP scopes. I ask because if you are disappointed in it I might as well put the notion of getting one out of my mind and live with my Vortex LHT 4.5-22.

Just yesterday I was shooting my AR at 1150Y with my March shorty DFP 1-10 and the IQ was severely lacking though its not too bad at normal distances, good enough to warrant keeping this scope. But seeing that far away was kind of a poke in the eye for me, lol.
On the hand my Athlon HG2 2-12 makes seeing the same target much easier, or I should say the visual experience was much better. Darn shorty short scopes and optical compromises screw with my eyes.

 

[Peskådot671]

From past experience using my S&B PM2 5-25x56 which has 10M parallax, an object at 10Y is only a hair out of focus on 25x. Dialing down to 15x or so clears the image back up nicely and is not out of focus on 10x.

Or at say 10.5 yards it's focused pretty good at 25x.

So Peska, how would you rate the IQ in the March 4.5-28 compared to your other scopes? It's supposed to be the best at less optical compromise as far as the short Marches FFP scopes. I ask because if you are disappointed in it I might as well put the notion of getting one out of my mind and live with my Vortex LHT 4.5-22.

Honestly, for the amount that I payed, I should have just got the ZCO 420 to begin with.

March 4.5-28x52
Pros:
- Wide angle lens gives great FOV.

- Handles light flare very well.

- Focuses down to 10 yards.

- The FML-TR1 reticle is one of my favorite reticles. I know that's a personal choice though.

- It comes with a lot of accessories.

- The weight is not that bad for a 34mm tube. 29.8 oz.

- It's a short scope coming in at 12.5" which is a great match for my AAA Evol Mini 22.

Cons:
- It has to be optically centered for better resolution. It's not as sharp and side focus can be a little finicky to have it snap into focus. Adjustable scope mounts would help. I keep the magnification between 10x to 15x.

- Yes it has a wide FOV but i can see a little edge distortion unless you move your eye off center.

- The illumination is the worst compared to my ZCO 420, Kahles K525i, Athlon Cronus BTR GEN2 4.5-29X56, NF NX8 2.5-20×50, and Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42. I would have to adjust the diopter to get the reticle in focus when the illumination is on. On a few occasions, it wouldn't turn on. Might have to get that checked.

Just yesterday I was shooting my AR at 1150Y with my March shorty DFP 1-10 and the IQ was severely lacking though its not too bad at normal distances, good enough to warrant keeping this scope. But seeing that far away was kind of a poke in the eye for me, lol.
On the hand my Athlon HG2 2-12 makes seeing the same target much easier, or I should say the visual experience was much better. Darn shorty short scopes and optical compromises screw with my eyes.

I also own an Athlon Helos BTR G2 2-12×42. I ordered mine when they first came out after you posted the introduction on it. That scope is easy to recommend and still surprises me in regards to IQ and overall build quality for the price. I wouldn't hesitate on picking up another one if I had another short rifle to put it on.

 

[steve123]

Honestly, for the amount that I payed, I should have just got the ZCO 420 to begin with.

March 4.5-28x52
Pros:
- Wide angle lens gives great FOV.

- Handles light flare very well.

- Focuses down to 10 yards.

- The FML-TR1 reticle is one of my favorite reticles. I know that's a personal choice though.

- It comes with a lot of accessories.

- The weight is not that bad for a 34mm tube. 29.8 oz.

- It's a short scope coming in at 12.5" which is a great match for my AAA Evol Mini 22.

Cons:
- It has to be optically centered for better resolution. It's not as sharp and side focus can be a little finicky to have it snap into focus. Adjustable scope mounts would help. I keep the magnification between 10x to 15x.

- Yes it has a wide FOV but i can see a little edge distortion unless you move your eye off center.

- The illumination is the worst compared to my ZCO 420, Kahles K525i, Athlon Cronus BTR GEN2 4.5-29X56, NF NX8 2.5-20×50, and Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42. I would have to adjust the diopter to get the reticle in focus when the illumination is on. On a few occasions, it wouldn't turn on. Might have to get that checked.



I also own an Athlon Helos BTR G2 2-12×42. I ordered mine when they first came out after you posted the introduction on it. That scope is easy to recommend and still surprises me in regards to IQ and overall build quality for the price. I wouldn't hesitate on picking up another one if I had another short rifle to put it on.

All noted. Great info and everything I needed. Thanks Peska!

 

[JungleShooter]

Athlon Helos BTR G2 2-12x42:
I ordered mine when they first came out after you posted the introduction on it. That scope is easy to recommend and still surprises me in regards to IQ and overall build quality for the price. I wouldn't hesitate on picking up another one if I had another short rifle to put it on.

This Athlon Helos Gen. 2 2-12x42 FFP gets praised everywhere....

➠ Will you finally STOP praising this scope?!?!

▪ I rarely need this magnification range.
▪ I already have three scopes that cover this magnification range.
▪ I have way more scopes than guns to put on.
▪ I have spent all my Christmas money (from this year's Christmas and next year's).

So, will you finally STOP praising this scope?!


Because otherwise I will just go and buy it!
What else can I do?!?


Matthias


PS:
However, if Athlon decided to make a 3-18x50 FFP with the same qualities as the so highly praised Helos 2-12x42 — I would have a better excuse to buy it....

 

[Smok3y]

I have owned both a NX8 4-32 and an ATACR 7-35. The ATACR is a better scope for me. The NX8 only has size and weight going for it paired with a fairly high mag if that is what you need. I didn’t think it was close to worth it and was happy to sell it. I would have to NEED that combination to buy one again. The ATACR was a great scope and one of my favorites several years ago, but scopes continue to evolve and get better and they haven’t improved the ATACR to demand the price premium.

Now that there are plenty of higher mag scopes out there for much cheaper and near the quality, I would (and have) gone different directions.

If I were to be considered then for their low mag versions, I would definitely go a different route all together.

 

[Sanctify7]

This Athlon Helos Gen. 2 2-12x42 FFP gets praised everywhere....

➠ Will you finally STOP praising this scope?!?!

▪ I rarely need this magnification range.
▪ I already have three scopes that cover this magnification range.
▪ I have way more scopes than guns to put on.
▪ I have spent all my Christmas money (from this year's Christmas and next year's).

So, will you finally STOP praising this scope?!


Because otherwise I will just go and buy it!
What else can I do?!?


Matthias


PS:
However, if Athlon decided to make a 3-18x50 FFP with the same qualities as the so highly praised Helos 2-12x42 — I would have a better excuse to buy it....

Matthias!
What does the Helos have over the Ares ETR 3-18 besides the reticle? S7