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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Smok3y said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response, Smok3y.

What about the ATACR was it that you favored over the NX8? I mean, I can infer, but if you don’t mind telling, it would help me.
Also, did you have one of those earlier models that Glassaholic said were not good at all? I am not challenging your experience in the least. But from what I have heard, we may almost be dealing with two different models if the first batch of the NX8s was vastly improved on. The link to the article informing about this possibility is in this thread.


Dec. 29 Edit: P671 pointed out that the model Glassaholic reviewed was the 2.5-20 and not the 4-32. Something similar in quality change could be at work, but the inference is not provable at this point.

S7
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Sanctify7 said:
Thanks for the response, Smok3y.

What about the ATACR was it that you favored over the NX8? I mean, I can infer, but if you don’t mind telling, it would help me.
Also, did you have one of those earlier models that Glassaholic said were not good at all? I am not challenging your experience in the least. But from what I have heard, we may almost be dealing with two different models if the first batch of the NX8s was vastly improved on. The link to the article informing about this possibility is in this thread.

S7
Click to expand...
S7,

I'm not answering for Smok3y but just want to clear things up because you mentioned it twice. The bad sample variation that Glassaholic initially received and reviewed was the 2.5-20×50, NOT the 4-32x50.

Also, to answer you question in regards to the 2.5-20×50 if it would focus down to 10 yards, let's just say their advertised 11 yard minimum parallax is pretty spot on. I just checked it out on 10x-20x magnification and it's so close and shouldn't be of concern.
 
Upvote 0
Peskådot671 said:
S7,

I'm not answering for Smok3y but just want to clear things up because you mentioned it twice. The bad sample variation that Glassaholic initially received and reviewed was the 2.5-20×50, NOT the 4-32x50.

Also, to answer you question in regards to the 2.5-20×50 if it would focus down to 10 yards, let's just say their advertised 11 yard minimum parallax is pretty spot on. I just checked it out on 10x-20x magnification and it's so close and shouldn't be of concern.
Click to expand...
Thanks for catching this, P671. I’ll edit my post to Smok3y.
And thanks for checking out the parallax. S7
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peskådot671
Upvote 0
My fascination for scopes is a fascinating phenomenon....

I think I need another scope like I need a hole in my head. Because I have more scopes than guns. 🤷🏻‍♂️


But yeah, I was looking to pay for a used Helos $300. That's half of the $600 for the ETR.... 😉


Still....
Still — the offer is tempting.... 🤔

Because the ETR checks all the boxes in that magnification range. Almost no other scope does. It's the ⭐-scope on my list!

So, who did you say is selling that ETR for $600....?

David, you got me!! The fascination of scopes! 😆

Matthias
 
  • Like
Reactions: Centercut
Upvote 0
Not to derail this thread but that Athlon Ares ETR UHD 3-18x50 you guys keep mentioning is getting my attention. Another scope I'm considering with good reviews is the Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 RD FFP with MRAD1 reticle which was designed by Ilya (Dark Lord of Optics). Both those scopes come in at around $850 retail. The obvious differences are that the Athlon has a 34mm tube, weighs 31.4oz, length is 14.2". The Meopta has a 30mm tube, weighs 29.9oz, length is 14.6". Both focus down to 10 yards.

A few of the key features that are drawing me to the Meopta is the MRAD1 reticle which is similar to the FML-TR1 reticle from March Optics except it has the horse shoe bracket around the crosshairs with a floating dot. It's also similar to the Athlon AHMR2 MIL reticle in the Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 which is good in the lower magnification ranges. Another plus on the Meopta is that you can easily see what magnification setting you're on without having to lift your head. That feature is also similar to my Kahles K525i which I really like. Just thinking out loud and maybe I should start a separate thread on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JungleShooter and steve123
Upvote 0
Peskådot671 said:
Not to derail this thread but that Athlon Ares ETR UHD 3-18x50 you guys keep mentioning is getting my attention. Another scope I'm considering with good reviews is the Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 RD FFP with MRAD1 reticle which was designed by Ilya (Dark Lord of Optics). Both those scopes come in at around $850 retail. The obvious differences are that the Athlon has a 34mm tube, weighs 31.4oz, length is 14.2". The Meopta has a 30mm tube, weighs 29.9oz, length is 14.6". Both focus down to 10 yards.

A few of the key features that are drawing me to the Meopta is the MRAD1 reticle which is similar to the FML-TR1 reticle from March Optics except it has the horse shoe bracket around the crosshairs with a floating dot. It's also similar to the Athlon AHMR2 MIL reticle in the Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 which is good in the lower magnification ranges. Another plus on the Meopta is that you can easily see what magnification setting you're on without having to lift your head. That feature is also similar to my Kahles K525i which I really like. Just thinking out loud and maybe I should start a separate thread on this.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a tough one.

The IQ in that ETR is very good. My good friend bought one earlier this year and it is impressive.
One downside could be how thin the reticle is on 3x, however the illume is mostly daylight bright so turned up all the way that'd help.
Another downside could be weight but it's somewhat compact. I think I'd rather use it as a long range hunting scope which is why he bought it which is for Coues Whitetail on up to elk.

Having the Optika 6 5-30 with MD3 reticle I think it has a little better IQ than the ETR though not by much. The MRAD1 reticle would definately give it a edge on lower magnifications and it's a little lighter.

Hmm...
I'm waiting to see what Athlon comes up with for 2024. Supposed to be a MPVO of some type???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peskådot671
Upvote 0
Peskådot671 said:
Not to derail this thread but that Athlon Ares ETR UHD 3-18x50 you guys keep mentioning is getting my attention. Another scope I'm considering with good reviews is the Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 RD FFP with MRAD1 reticle which was designed by Ilya (Dark Lord of Optics). Both those scopes come in at around $850 retail. The obvious differences are that the Athlon has a 34mm tube, weighs 31.4oz, length is 14.2". The Meopta has a 30mm tube, weighs 29.9oz, length is 14.6". Both focus down to 10 yards.

A few of the key features that are drawing me to the Meopta is the MRAD1 reticle which is similar to the FML-TR1 reticle from March Optics except it has the horse shoe bracket around the crosshairs with a floating dot. It's also similar to the Athlon AHMR2 MIL reticle in the Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 which is good in the lower magnification ranges. Another plus on the Meopta is that you can easily see what magnification setting you're on without having to lift your head. That feature is also similar to my Kahles K525i which I really like. Just thinking out loud and maybe I should start a separate thread on this.
Click to expand...
As the OP, I don’t mind the diversion, P671. I realized that the thread was moving a day or two ago.
I checked out the MRAD1 reticle on the Meopta Optika 3-18. While I have you, I asked you about reticles in two of your other scopes: the ZCO 4-20 and one other one. I like the clean MPCT1 ZCO reticle. Expanding the space around the center dot, as ZCO did with the MPCT3x (which I like), may be a nice move. I slightly prefer the MOAR1 reticle for the NX8, but the one you have is probably my second favorite and would not hinder a purchase. S7
Peskådot671 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Understood. I am rereading this post and do not know what you mean in the last sentence. I would have thought that high erector assemblies typically are found in longer tubes. Am I missing something? Thanks. S7
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Airgun-hobbyist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, AH. S7
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airgun-hobbyist
Upvote 0
  • Like
Reactions: Airgun-hobbyist
Upvote 0
Sanctify7 said:
As the OP, I don’t mind the diversion, P671. I realized that the thread was moving a day or two ago.
I checked out the MRAD1 reticle on the Meopta Optika 3-18. While I have you, I asked you about reticles in two of your other scopes: the ZCO 4-20 and one other one. I like the clean MPCT1 ZCO reticle. Expanding the space around the center dot, as ZCO did with the MPCT3x (which I like), may be a nice move. I slightly prefer the MOAR1 reticle for the NX8, but the one you have is probably my second favorite and would not hinder a purchase. S7

Understood. I am rereading this post and do not know what you mean in the last sentence. I would have thought that high erector assemblies typically are found in longer tubes. Am I missing something? Thanks. S7
Click to expand...
I was referring to mid-power/medium power variable optics (MPVO) which the market has evolved to for shorter guns (powder burners) to be used at intermediate and medium ranges. Scope manufacturers like March, NF, S&B, etc have been trying to push the envelope in scope design to cram a high erector assembly (above 6x, 8x) in a short FFP scope. I might have to take it back because I now recall that March has their 5-40x56 FFP which has an 8x magnification ratio in a 15.32" length scope.
 
Upvote 0
some general information between the two:
the nx8's are described as having less depth of field than the ATACRs, both have great reputations for repeatable tracking, and holding zero when treated roughly.

the NX8 line parallax down to airgun distances, while only the new ATACR 4-20x50 has parallax down to airgun ranges. (Edit: correction by peskadot below there is one more mag range that has a low parallax)

out of all NF optics the ATACR 4-16x42 is the only one with zero hold, while the rest have zero stop. apparently leuopold had some patent issues with how they implemented the zero hold. they all have zero stop.

i believe none have zero hold for windage, but can be capped, but again have zero stop.

the 34mm tubed ATACRs are beefy, not quite as beefy as the Vortex Razor line though.

FWIW the ATACR line have multiple military contracts, but the premium in weight and price are typically not worth it for airgun distances and the already heavier airguns. both should be more durable in getting knocked around than most PCPs. IMO NX8 are a better choice for airguns especially given only one ATACR model parallaxes down to close distance.

eurooptic has some good deals for both for "as new demo", and they have a great reputation in the PB community for the demo units being indistinguishable from factory new - https://www.eurooptic.com/search.aspx?keyword=new demo nightforce
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
sticman77 said:
some general information between the two:
the nx8's are described as having less depth of field than the ATACRs, both have great reputations for repeatable tracking, and holding zero when treated roughly.

the NX8 line parallax down to airgun distances, while only the new ATACR 4-20x50 has parallax down to airgun ranges.

out of all NF optics the ATACR 4-16x42 is the only one with zero hold, while the rest have zero stop. apparently leuopold had some patent issues with how they implemented the zero hold. they all have zero stop.

i believe none have zero hold for windage, but can be capped, but again have zero stop.

the 34mm tubed ATACRs are beefy, not quite as beefy as the Vortex Razor line though.

FWIW the ATACR line have multiple military contracts, but the premium in weight and price are typically not worth it for airgun distances and the already heavier airguns. both should be more durable in getting knocked around than most PCPs. IMO NX8 are a better choice for airguns especially given only one ATACR model parallaxes down to close distance.

eurooptic has some good deals for both for "as new demo", and they have a great reputation in the PB community for the demo units being indistinguishable from factory new - https://www.eurooptic.com/search.aspx?keyword=new demo nightforce
Click to expand...
Besides the 4-20x50, there are 2 other ATACR models that also parallax down to 11 yards;

- ATACR 7-35X56 F1/FFP
- ATACR 7-35×56 F2/SFP
 
  • Like
Reactions: sticman77
Upvote 0
Sanctify7 said:
Thanks for the response, Smok3y.

What about the ATACR was it that you favored over the NX8? I mean, I can infer, but if you don’t mind telling, it would help me.
Also, did you have one of those earlier models that Glassaholic said were not good at all? I am not challenging your experience in the least. But from what I have heard, we may almost be dealing with two different models if the first batch of the NX8s was vastly improved on. The link to the article informing about this possibility is in this thread.


Dec. 29 Edit: P671 pointed out that the model Glassaholic reviewed was the 2.5-20 and not the 4-32. Something similar in quality change could be at work, but the inference is not provable at this point.

S7
Click to expand...
Sorry… been away…
Note that the 4-32 is usually considered a better scope than the 2.5-20. As said here, the 2.5-20 is usually the one that people have complained about. I have never used the 2.5-20. I didn’t go into too much detail and tried to just hit the high points, because I have seen several people say many of the things I would have said. I was not bashing the NX8.

The NX8 4-32 isn’t a bad scope, just to be clear. But at $1800+, it isn’t close to worth that too me, and I like expensive scopes. Being so small, they have to make optical compromises to make such a small package. The eye box being tighter isn’t great for one thing. I had it right after the ATACR and I remember not being impressed optically either. Not bad, but not nearly as superb as I found the ATACR (but it shouldn’t be for the price either!). As I said, the size is the only reason I would go with it, if I needed small and light, because there aren’t many options for that combo. That being said, I would much rather buy quite a few scopes in that price range and get a much larger scope with similar mag range and not have to compromise (Athlon Cronus first comes to mind) I had to try the NX8 to see if I would like it, but I can’t think of a rifle I would need that light weight of a scope and 4-32 power on. Being on the bench mostly, it made sense to get a big heavy scope for the bench.

All that being said, at the time, the ATACR was my favorite scope, but even at the used price of $2700 that I paid for it, I found that I didn’t need to spend $1500 more to get a quality scope for what I was using it for. Many new scopes have come out in that high mag range that are really good and cheaper and just as good.
 
Upvote 0
Smok3y said:
Many new scopes have come out in that high mag range that are really good and cheaper and just as good.
Click to expand...


People say that things will get worse when we get near the end of human history, and I suppose that's true.


However, when I look at SCOPES, they seem to be an exception:
➧ Comparing the scope quality, true tracking, glass quality, variety of 10y parallax scopes, and the features & functions that are available NOW — to those that were available 15 years ago — we're almost in scope nirvana!❗ 😃

Especially at the prices that we get all those awesome magnification ranges, zero stops, max. elevation adjustments, variety of reticles, and on and on...... 😃


➧ What a great time to be an airgunner!

➠ Let's see what 2024 holds for us scope nuts!

Matthias
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smok3y
Upvote 0
JungleShooter said:
Now, THAT is the scope that is still missing in my short list of incredible scopes that are beyond belief:
Incredibly high performance —
for an incredibly high price.

Matthias
Click to expand...

My wife had the older March 5-40 and I had the March HM 5-42, both in the same time frame so I could compare them side by side.

The 5-42 was more refined and had the newer locking turrets as well a neat scope in so many ways, BUT!!! It got pretty dim and somewhat blurry by 38x or so which I didn't appreciate. Awesome on low to mid magnification. IQ was better in the middle of the FOV and deteriorated when getting to the edges though. If less compromised optically this scope might have been the ultimate.
Again those darn shorty short scopes.....

The 5-40 actually pulled off high magnification better but IQ not as good as the other scope on lower mag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanctify7 and Peskådot671
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu