Nightforce or Vortex

[CHROME]

I am in the market for another scope. I am looking at either the NF 5x25 F1 ATACR or the Vortex Razor HD Gen 2 4.5x27. Looking for feed back from folks that either have had or currently have both. Clarity and brightness are the 2 major important factors for me...I know all the other features.

 

[450AK]

I have a Atacr 5-25x56 34mm tube and the MOAR-T. I absolutely love it. Nice and bright and super clear. I shoot mostly varmints and long range steal and I don't think you could get a better scope for the money.

 

[SierraCJ5]

I have both; an ATACR 5-25 F1 MOAR & a Razor 4.5-27 ebr2c mrad.

I feel the Razor is strong in certain areas: reticle design, fov, turrets, mag range and illumination control. The ATACR is strong with reasonable weight and rotating ocular for mag adjustment. The features of the razor are very nice and I feel a significant improvement over the ATACR F1. Clarity and overall optical performance is nearly identical and, in my opinion, couldn't be used to differentiate between the two.

Weaknesses of each: Razor is weight and I don't particularly care for the clickless zero. ATACR weakness: reticle options, capped windage compared to exposed locking turrets, terrible illumination control, very limited fov.

Both are excellent optics and I don't think either will disappoint.

 

[3dogs]

I was down to the same 2 scopes for my new 6 x 47 L, went with the Vortex
Jim

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Look at the March 2.5-25x52. Great reticles, 120 moa, Half the size of an ATACR. To me the ATACR is comically large for what it is. I owned an ATACR and it was excellent, just huge.

 

[CHROME]

Thanks for the input guys...Im now leaning towards other options...Like more power. I am looking at the NF 15x55. Lets hear some feed back on that scope. Brightness and clarity is still very important.

 

[XTR]

What is the intended use for the scope? The Comp is a completely different scope to the first two you mentioned.

The 15-55 is a second focal plane scope. No illumination, and it's not offered in mil turrets (if that's what you are looking for) magnification isn't the be all end all. I find that I run my comp on 40 more than I do on 55 due to mirage.

The Comp is a great scope for it's intended use, poking holes in paper at long range. If you have other uses in mind it may not be the best choice.

 

[CHROME]

What is the intended use for the scope? The Comp is a completely different scope to the first two you mentioned.

The 15-55 is a second focal plane scope. No illumination, and it's not offered in mil turrets (if that's what you are looking for) magnification isn't the be all end all. I find that I run my comp on 40 more than I do on 55 due to mirage.

The Comp is a great scope for it's intended use, poking holes in paper at long range. If you have other uses in mind it may not be the best choice.

Poking holes st distances from 100 to 1000 and clanging steel. No "competition" at this time. I understand the differences I the scopes. I love my ATACR scope, just looking for more zoom.

 

[Kakumba]

Poking holes st distances from 100 to 1000 and clanging steel. No "competition" at this time. I understand the differences I the scopes. I love my ATACR scope, just looking for more zoom.

You might want to look at March scopes. I have the NF 15-55, and wouldnt use it for anything other than F class/ benchrest. Not saying you cant, just saying I dont think its a great choice outside those types of shooting

 

[Cujo]

How about the March 5-40X56 FFP? I really like the one that I have.

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

I have both; an ATACR 5-25 F1 MOAR & a Razor 4.5-27 ebr2c mrad.

I feel the Razor is strong in certain areas: reticle design, fov, turrets, mag range and illumination control. The ATACR is strong with reasonable weight and rotating ocular for mag adjustment. The features of the razor are very nice and I feel a significant improvement over the ATACR F1. Clarity and overall optical performance is nearly identical and, in my opinion, couldn't be used to differentiate between the two.

Weaknesses of each: Razor is weight and I don't particularly care for the clickless zero. ATACR weakness: reticle options, capped windage compared to exposed locking turrets, terrible illumination control, very limited fov.

Both are excellent optics and I don't think either will disappoint.

I completely agree with Sierra. However, I have an NXS and BEAST not the ATACR but I do have a Gen. II and it is great minus the weight. IMO I think both scopes are VERY close. I am a big fan of the MOAR reticle but I love the my GenII reticle. I am not impressed with FFP scopes at low magnification in general but as soon as I get past 15x the reticle comes to life and is very useful. I like the Zero Stop better for a zeroing tool. Like Sierra, the illumination on the NF is not as nice as the Vortex. I have used both of the companies customer service over the years and I think Vortex gives you a little better warranty but both have great CS.

That is a very tuff choice you have... I have thought several times that I should have bought the ATACR F1 instead of my Gen II then I go shooting with it and fall in love with it all over again and am happy with my choice.

That being said, I do believe that NF is a little better quality scope, it just seems that NF takes a little longer making their scopes. JMO and I hope this helps.

 

[r1200mike]

I was in the same boat a few weeks ago. I have a NF NXS 8x32 and its a good scope for target shooting. But I decided to build another tactical rifle. A close friend has a Vortex 4.5x27 Razor and I was able to shoot his rifle out to 1000 and just fell in love with the EBR2c reticle. I also looked at the ATACR and In my opinion the Vortex is just better for my intended purpose. Plus I get a substantial .Mil discount from Vortex. something NF does not do. My tac rifle is still at the gunsmith so I put the Razor on my 6br prone rifle and zeroed at 300yds. using the LRBC from vortex I made 1st rd. hits from 400 to 900 yds. using the EBR2c reticle. Pretty impressive. I just ordered the 1-6 Razor. Mike