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

[JungleShooter]

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.

You wife shoots, too?

Steve, you're blessed!!

Matthias

 

[steve123]

You wife shoots, too?

Steve, you're blessed!!

Matthias

She "used" to shoot is more correct but yeah she had a USFT and this March was on it but we sold both of them.

Edit, she even won a few FT matches and won a shootoff once.

 

[JungleShooter]

She "used" to shoot is more correct but yeah she had a USFT and this March was on it but we sold both of them.

Edit, she even won a few FT matches and won a shootoff once.

That's still very cool.
Tell her "Congratulations" from me.

Matthias

 

[Sanctify7]

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.

Got it. But I think your point stands, at least in good measure. Thanks. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

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.

Thanks, Smok3y, and I appreciate the consideration voiced but no concerns for the delay.

This fills things in for me. I don't recall the 2.5-20 eye box being too bad, but it (1) was not on a gun but in hand and (2) I use the Element Helix 4-16x44, which, if I recall correctly, some say has a tight eye box; therefore, I may be somewhat used to this limitation.

Yes, those NX8s do seem a bit pricey--and they don't go on sale for too much off, either.

I would like to try the NX8 4-32 and try to compare it to my memory of the 2.5-20. I did like that wide FOV with the latter, though. (I still want to peer through an ATACR or two, also.)

Because of the parallax and weight, the otherwise attractive Cronus is not a real consideration. If I ever have a dedicated bench setup, I may reconsider.
It is somewhat of an irony that, regardless of the veracity of Matthias's remark that we now have a wealth of good scope options, so many of us are looking for a scope with the perfect design for our contexts.

Take care. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

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

Hey, sticman77.

Thanks for piping in.

Regarding tracking, I have heard a near-unanimous voice stating that these two NF lines track great.

I am going to have to find out what the difference is between "zero hold" and "zero stop." So much of my scope knowledge is still conceptual and not hands on, by the way. I would like to narrow that gap.

Yes, I have been eyeing Eurooptics as of late; there are some decent reductions on used/demo models, but thanks for mentioning this.

S7

 

[Smok3y]

Thanks, Smok3y, and I appreciate the consideration voiced but no concerns for the delay.

This fills things in for me. I don't recall the 2.5-20 eye box being too bad, but it (1) was not on a gun but in hand and (2) I use the Element Helix 4-16x44, which, if I recall correctly, some say has a tight eye box; therefore, I may be somewhat used to this limitation.

Yes, those NX8s do seem a bit pricey--and they don't go on sale for too much off, either.

I would like to try the NX8 4-32 and try to compare it to my memory of the 2.5-20. I did like that wide FOV with the latter, though. (I still want to peer through an ATACR or two, also.)

Because of the parallax and weight, the otherwise attractive Cronus is not a real consideration. If I ever have a dedicated bench setup, I may reconsider.
It is somewhat of an irony that, regardless of the veracity of Matthias's remark that we now have a wealth of good scope options, so many of us are looking for a scope with the perfect design for our contexts.

Take care. S7

Makes sense. You do have to find what fits what you are looking for, and you and I are not looking for the same things right now. On the eye box thing… I have had people say that to me on scopes as well, and I haven’t had an issue either. How you use it plays a big factor.

I have never used a scope with “zero hold” before, but have seen the term. It almost sounds like a temporary zero stop with a button, instead of your typical zero stop where you adjust the turret from inside to adjust the stop.

Having read through the posts, it seems like you don’t need too too high of a mag, and you want a smaller lighter scopes. I actually think this opens you up to so many scopes. Don’t be afraid to try a few used and sell and trade off until you find what you need. I have found that the perfect scope is almost never as perfect as I hope. I have wanted to try that ATACR 4-20 before as well, but the price has turned me off. I haven’t felt like a I need that much scope in a 4-20, but many people want that and more, and that is cool too. In mags like the 4-20, I have chosen to save and go with scopes like the Athlon Helos for my needs, but much different level than you are considering.

I am curious to see what you think if you try the ATACR 4-20. The NF ATACR was probably the first expensive scope I tried that I was truly happy with and noticed a big enough difference that I thought it was almost worth it.

 

[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.

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.

A-h,
Here’s an additional and late response to you. I got a chance to handle and look through the NX8 1-8. It was an Amazon “Try before you buy” deal. So I tried it. I previously had never looked through a scope with no or fixed parallax before. Yes, by turning the mag well down I could acquire targets at extremely close distances, and I am talking very close. However, on an Airgun I am looking for that kind of crispness that comes with focus adjustment, and I simply could not get it. I really liked the scope, however, including the DMX reticle. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

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.

Steve,
This is a late comment, obviously. You have elsewhere made comments about the March 5-40 and 5-42, but I forgot what was said. I bumped into this post today and finally got it straight. Whew. It is the 5-42 HM that is better, just not at top mag. Thanks. S7

 

[steve123]

Steve,
This is a late comment, obviously. You have elsewhere made comments about the March 5-40 and 5-42, but I forgot what was said. I bumped into this post today and finally got it straight. Whew. It is the 5-42 HM that is better, just not at top mag. Thanks. S7

Yes.

The March 5-42 is super nice and very refined in nearly every way and more so than the 5-40 with the older style turrets, just that my eyes didn't work well with the optical formula. Some 40-ish to 50-ish year old shooter friends of mine didn't seem to feel like they struggled at higher magnification with it like I did and the younger guy I sold it too had no complaints.

Basically to me it was awesome at 15x, by 30x it was still pretty good, and by 38x it was dimming with IQ just ok at best, then 42x it looked dim and blurry to me.

The 5-40 looked great at 15x, not quite as good as the 5-42 until around 36x and superior at 40x. Weird I know.

I never got a chance to look through another 5-42 to see if there was any difference in IQ.

 

[Sanctify7]

Yes.

The March 5-42 is super nice and very refined in nearly every way it's, more so than the 5-40 with the older style turrets, just that my eyes didn't work well with the optical formula. Some 40-ish to 50-ish year old shooter friends of mine didn't seem to feel like they struggled at higher magnification with it like I did and the younger guy I sold it too had no complaints.

Basically to me it was awesome at 15x, by 30x it was still pretty good, and by 38x it was dimming with IQ just ok at best, then 42x it looked dim and blurry to me.

The 5-40 looked great at 15x, not quite as good as the 5-42 until around 36x and superior at 40x. Weird I know.

I never got a chance to look through another 5-42 to see if there was any difference in IQ.

Thanks, Steve. All is helpful information.
S7

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

A-h,
Here’s an additional and late response to you. I got a chance to handle and look through the NX8 1-8. It was an Amazon “Try before you buy” deal. So I tried it. I previously had never looked through a scope with no or fixed parallax before. Yes, by turning the mag well down I could acquire targets at extremely close distances, and I am talking very close. However, on an Airgun I am looking for that kind of crispness that comes with focus adjustment, and I simply could not get it. I really liked the scope, however, including the DMX reticle. S7

That is understandable. In use on an airgun, it is not a scope for other than hunting and longer range shooting without a parallax adjustment. I like it for this because fiddling with parallax adjustment when hunting big game may not result in a filled tag.

 

[karl_h]

....
If my question is put too simplistically or whatever, I get it. Thanks.

Way too simple. Magically take the exact same design, exact same materials, sourced from the exact same place, made/assembled by two actually different manufacturer's and not just badging, they can be radically different in image quality.

Big thing is glass, manufacturer's love to say they use japanese glass, or schott glass. That is 100% meaningless unless they give the exact specifications of their order, and if blanks, the method and error acceptable of their grinding/polishing operation. Their are scopes out there with schott glass I wouldn't give one dollar for, and chinese glass i would pay a few hundred for....

 

[Sanctify7]

Makes sense. You do have to find what fits what you are looking for, and you and I are not looking for the same things right now. On the eye box thing… I have had people say that to me on scopes as well, and I haven’t had an issue either. How you use it plays a big factor.

I have never used a scope with “zero hold” before, but have seen the term. It almost sounds like a temporary zero stop with a button, instead of your typical zero stop where you adjust the turret from inside to adjust the stop.

Having read through the posts, it seems like you don’t need too too high of a mag, and you want a smaller lighter scopes. I actually think this opens you up to so many scopes. Don’t be afraid to try a few used and sell and trade off until you find what you need. I have found that the perfect scope is almost never as perfect as I hope. I have wanted to try that ATACR 4-20 before as well, but the price has turned me off. I haven’t felt like a I need that much scope in a 4-20, but many people want that and more, and that is cool too. In mags like the 4-20, I have chosen to save and go with scopes like the Athlon Helos for my needs, but much different level than you are considering.

I am curious to see what you think if you try the ATACR 4-20. The NF ATACR was probably the first expensive scope I tried that I was truly happy with and noticed a big enough difference that I thought it was almost worth it.

There is a like-new ATACR 4-20x50 for $2399.00 on eurooptics, and it has been there for a few weeks now. But I cannot presently do it. I would have liked to. We shall see. Take care for now. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

Makes sense. You do have to find what fits what you are looking for, and you and I are not looking for the same things right now. On the eye box thing… I have had people say that to me on scopes as well, and I haven’t had an issue either. How you use it plays a big factor.

I have never used a scope with “zero hold” before, but have seen the term. It almost sounds like a temporary zero stop with a button, instead of your typical zero stop where you adjust the turret from inside to adjust the stop.

Having read through the posts, it seems like you don’t need too too high of a mag, and you want a smaller lighter scopes. I actually think this opens you up to so many scopes. Don’t be afraid to try a few used and sell and trade off until you find what you need. I have found that the perfect scope is almost never as perfect as I hope. I have wanted to try that ATACR 4-20 before as well, but the price has turned me off. I haven’t felt like a I need that much scope in a 4-20, but many people want that and more, and that is cool too. In mags like the 4-20, I have chosen to save and go with scopes like the Athlon Helos for my needs, but much different level than you are considering.

I am curious to see what you think if you try the ATACR 4-20. The NF ATACR was probably the first expensive scope I tried that I was truly happy with and noticed a big enough difference that I thought it was almost worth it.

Greetings, Smok3y.
It has been a bit, but I remembered that you were interested in how I liked the ATACR 4-20 if I got hold of one. Well, I do like it, indeed. I am going to brave a comparison between it and the Ares ETR 3-18 on a new thread. If you care to check it out, the simple title will be, Ares ETR 3-18x50 vs. the ATACR 4-20x50.
S7

 

[JungleShooter]

If you care to check it out, the simple title will be, Ares ETR 3-18x50 vs. the ATACR 4-20x50.
S7

I DO CARE to check it out — please send us a link here — as I am trying to wean myself off reading the title of every new thread....

I can just not do it anymore: The amount of airgun forums and the amount of airguns chat groups is encroaching on the rest of my life.....
➠ I have to make cuts somewhere...!

Matthias

 

[Sanctify7]

Hi, Matthias.

I just saw your post. The reason I did not initially include the link is because I didn't create the thread yet.

Ares ETR 3-18x50 vs. the ATACR 4-20x50: Some thoughts

I decided to put my notes together on these two scopes. Please know that I know this is not a professional review! It is me having fun and trying to work my way through the myriad of qualities and features that the plethora of scopes on the market today offer. The 'review,' if it can generously...

www.airgunnation.com

S7