ELR optics: Leupold vs Nightforce

[Ledd Slinger]

Did you look through a ATACR? I looked through one once and the glass seemed to be much like the Competition except maybe brighter. Probably because of the bigger objective. Matt

No I haven't. We just got a new retailer in town that carries every scope and mount that NightForce makes. I'm sure at some point I'll go have a look at them. Of course wont be able to do a full proper evaluation, just perhaps comment on the initial impression.

I have looked through NXS quite a few times during varying lighting conditions in the field. Nice glass but nothing that gets me excited. In reading reviews and opinions, all the NF loyalists who own the new ATACR and BEAST seem to all say the glass is a big improvement over the NXS.

 

[284winner]

At about a 1,000.00 difference between the NXS and the ATACR, I'd hope that there's an optical improvement. Another 1,000.00 up from the ATACR to the BEAST.

 

[D.Stone]

Leupold is coming out with a 7-35x Mark 5 that might be a winner. Probably functionally as good as the Nightforce without being as nice.

 

[Delfuego]

I have looked through NXS quite a few times during varying lighting conditions in the field. Nice glass but nothing that gets me excited. In reading reviews and opinions, all the NF loyalists who own the new ATACR and BEAST seem to all say the glass is a big improvement over the NXS.

ATACR is quite an improvement over the NXS Series. I feel the same as you regarding the NXS glass. The beast glass is no better than the ATACR and the knobs are clunky.

 

[dougridgeore]

I have bought several of the Mark 4 fixed 16 power scopes in the last year one of them off this forum for around $750 each. As far a hitting steel at a mile seem to me they work pretty good and I agree with earlier post that having high magnification is not always the answer in ELR especially when dealing mirage and the travel limits on say a 12-42 NSX.
The Mark 4 fixed 16 power has 140 MOA travel top to bottom (zero on the turret is at 70 MOA up) probably not as bright as a 3000 dollar scope but totally usable. So if your just getting started and dont want to spend a lot of money? I think it’s a usable option. And if I showed you pictures of a 1600 yard group my friend Richard shot everyone on this forum would call B.S. lets just say it was very small, 3 shots in a row group.

 

[centerlineseal]

I have bought several of the Mark 4 fixed 16 power scopes in the last year one of them off this forum for around $750 each. As far a hitting steel at a mile seem to me they work pretty good and I agree with earlier post that having high magnification is not always the answer in ELR especially when dealing mirage and the travel limits on say a 12-42 NSX.
The Mark 4 fixed 16 power has 140 MOA travel top to bottom (zero on the turret is at 70 MOA up) probably not as bright as a 3000 dollar scope but totally usable. So if your just getting started and dont want to spend a lot of money? I think it’s a usable option. And if I showed you pictures of a 1600 yard group my friend Richard shot everyone on this forum would call B.S. lets just say it was very small, 3 shots in a row group.

Let's see it.

I'm running the same 16x on both my 338LM Sako M42 and my 7mm08 700 VLS. I would love to use the M42 platform out to 2K, but am somewhat intimidated by the apparent limitation.

 

[Lannister]

I have both NF 4-16 and the Leupold Mk5 3.6-18. The earlier comment on the mk5 being better in low light has been my experience as well. I have the Illuminated TMR, and it resides on a 300 win mag hunting rifle. I like the low light performance and the TMR is thicker and easier to find at low power hunting environments. However, the NF 4-16, with Mil-C is my match rifle scope. I MUCH prefer the 0.2 hashes of the Mil-C to the TMR. I'm not a fan of the T3, or the CCH. If Leupold would create an updated "TMR" with 0.2 mil marks and a vertical line with hashes all the way to the bottom (that's illuminated) I would not hesitate to switch to the Mk5 on a match rifle.
As an aside- my Mk5 has tracked perfectly over 400 rounds of 300 win mag out to 1000 yards.

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

You lay your money down and take your chances. No matter how much the scope costs, they can all have issues. (Edit, removed. Added nothing to the conversations)

On warranty, I have used Nightforces, Leupolds and Vortex. They were all basically identical. I got the scope back with essentially NTF but it worked when I got it back. I am convinced they no longer tell the customer what the issue is as the internet will blow it way out of proportion.

I absolutely agree.

Always buy the best product with the best CS/warrenty and hope you never need it

My brother had an issue with his NSX tracking and they fixed it and returned it within 10 days but they NEVER would tell me what the problem was. VERY private about that stuff...
IMO I don't think Vortex, Bushnell, Burris, Simmons, to name a few...belong in the same category as NF, S&B, Leupold, Stiener, Kahlas, ZCO, Tangent Theta, etc... JMO

 

[Finaddictions]

I have 3 MK-5's. I've got two 5-25's and one 3.6-18. I've shot all of them to extended ranges. I shoot matches through the summer, and I've run them up and down consistently, and they match my dope consistently. I've yet to have anything stumble with any of the three of them. The glass is clear and they are exceptionally good in glare situations, and also in lower light. I've shot the ATACR but not owned one, and I thought they were also a very nice scope, although I did think the eye relief was a little more critical. I have taken my MK-5's to a mile, and again, everything has worked as predicted.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

My biggest gripe with Leupold is their reticles. I like dialing turrets so I dont like busy reticles like "Christmas Trees" and other types with all kinds of useless trash. They do have reticles with less trash, but those all seem to be 'open' reticles with nothing in the center.

For some unknown reason to me, Leupold still thinks it's a good idea to leave the center portion of the reticle empty...I personally hate that. My old 4.5-14 Mark 4 had a reticle like that. I eventually grew to despise it the more I shot long range targets and eventually sold the scope because of it. Can't aim very precisely at long range with nothing to actually place on the target. Same reason I hate the Nikon BDC reticle. Open reticles work fine up close, but once you get way out there and the target gets smaller, it becomes more difficult to aim precisely

 

[McMillan's ELRHQ]

Our favorite here at McMillan's ELRHQ is the NF ATACR 7-35x56 MOAR F1.

A. It's clear and has plenty of magnification.
B. Elevation, elevation, elevation! 100 MOA of elevation travel.

This is what Paul Phillips used for his 6012 yard shot.

 

[mikehotel]

I have 2 NXS's and everything, is better in the new 7-35 ATACR. The glass is brighter and clearer, turrets are nice and the zero stop a step up from the NXS. I love this new scope.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I'm surprised that for the price a person pays for a NXS that NF hasn't updated that line of scopes with HD coatings and ED glass... Years ago the NXS used to be regarded as one of the best scopes optically, but nowadays you can get better glass for the same or even less money all while still having 100 MOA of adjustment too.

 

[Area51]

I really like my USO scopes, gonna to use one for the new project ELR rifle. They track and do all the rest pretty good. they snick and click real nice too.