How do this two scopes compare? The Nightforce is clearly the better scope, I don’t think any one will argue that. But how much better and in what ways?
These are very similar scopes on paper.
-Dimensionally they are very similar, though the Trijicon lists as 4oz. heavier.
-People report the Trijicon is not as bright as may be liked.
-The Trijicon has reports of turret zero set issues.
But what I am really interested in is how much better is the ATACR glass? Is it more than twice as good?
Edge to edge clarity?
Flatness?
How forgiving is the eye box?
How forgiving is the eye relief?
How thin is the perceived ‘black ring’ around the eye box?
I am interested in how these parameters compare between the two scopes. I expect the Nightforce is better in all aspects? But how much better? I’d love to hear from people who have handled both mounted on a gun.
I am trying to decide between a Trijicom accupower 1-8 and a Nightforce nxs 1-8 or only a Nightforce ATACR 1-8. Previously I was set on both of the lesser scopes for about 2800$ together. But now with all of the rave reviews on the ATACR I wonder if my money is better spent on one scope?
I own two nightforce nxs scopes, a 1-4 and a 2.5-10. I am comfortable spending that much on a scope, I am a little hesitant to drop 2750$ on a single scope. Is the value there or are there diminishing returns as you move up from the trijicon?
It’s my opinion that the NX8 and ATACR do not overlap. That’s like saying the porche gt3 and the G55 AMG are contenders because they both have similar horsepower. They are just too different to compare even though the have the same power.
Correct and those comparisons exist pretty in depth online.
Which is why I am interested in a comparison in the dimensionally similar Trijicon 1-8 and Nightforce ATACR 1-8. I know in buying the nxs 1-8 I am buying a different class of 1-8.
I have not looked through an ATACR, but the Trijicon 1-8 that I looked through was “very meh”, is about the best I can sum it up. The unity on 1x was G2G, but everything else kindof sucked. I think it would be a great buy in the $7-800 range.
Which is what I have read and what has got me onto the idea of the ATACR, especially as I had already been considering a Trijicon 1-8. The NXS reviews made me wonder if I should just get the ATACR. What I am trying to establish is if the Trijicon is a better value than the ATACR.
You’re comparing a $1200 scope to a $2700 scope. The ATACR is better in every possible way except I personally prefer Euro style diopter adjustment, which the ATACR doesn’t have.
I would use the NX8, razor 1-6, or kahles k16i over the trijicon 1-8. And I currently own or used to own all of the mentioned scopes, including the trijicon.
Yes, it’s more than twice as good. This doesn’t mean the trijicon is bad, however. It’s simply a different class of optic.
Accupower glass is like NXS or Viper PST 2 glass. The price reflects this. ATACR glass is like S&B glass. Less chromatic abberation, higher contrast, better color rendition, etc.
The eye box on the ATACR is very comfortable. There’s little edge distortion. The glass is excellent. It’s nearly an inch shorter and a quarter pound less, and the illumination is much better. Oh, and the biggest thing: the ATACR reticle is good; the accupower reticle is, in my opinion, quite poor.
The NX8 compared to the trijicon is a bit different. The NX8 is 2" shorter and a half pound lighter. The illumination is nuclear bright (setting 8 on NX8 equals max setting on ATACR). The reticle is much better, too (some would say better than the ATACR reticle, even). The eye box is not as forgiving compared to the trijicon, and the glass quality is similar. The NX8 is also a bit more expensive.
At the $1200-1300 price point I’d go Razor E 1-6 all day long. At the $2000 price point I’d probably still go Razor unless you really like the weight and reticle in the Kahles k16i. The Razor is the value king in the high end 1-x scope choices. The 1-8 offerings all have compromises, be it eye box, weight, illumination, reticle, or cost.
To add, the ATACR’s clarity and color rendition is quite remarkable for it’s focal range. Love the reticle and it’s nuclear bright DLV. Never had a need to crank it that high, but it’s nice to know it’s there if you need it. It’s also built very robust, which is pretty much par for course for any optic in this class these days, but I feel very confident in its ability to retain zero and functionality if it were to take a nasty spill. The only thing I really don’t really care for is the locking ring on the eyepiece, but I can live with it.
There’s not one post on here I’d argue with. This coming from a guy that currently owns the ATACR 1-8, the NX8, a NF 2.5-10x24, and sold a Razor 1-6 to find those purchases. Slippers and Boba hit the nail on the head. The Trijicon isn’t even in the conversation if we’re talking about the ATACR. My one point of possible disagreement, and this is so personal as to be simply one guy’s opinion, is that I believe the NX8 is 90% of what the ATACR is. Guys will disagree, and that’s why scope forums exist, but I do LOVE that little NX8. At 17oz, and a size like most 1-4’s, I love the NX8. BUT, both of them are superior to the Trijicon, I don’t think that’s arguable.
It’s a phenomenal time right now for LPV’s. We’ve never had it better.
I have a car I’m in the process of selling. An extra pleasure car, a 1979 Toyota landcruiser. I have no want for it’s as I’m deep in Mercedes G wagens right now. Kind of consolidating calibers it’s consoliditing types of wehicles.
Once it’s gone in a week or two I’m going to go with ATACR.
One issue I’ve noticed with the NX8 is that the reticle at 1x needs to be illuminated to be visible. Anytime the target is surrounded by a dim background and especially indoors, the T-reticle is pretty much invisible. I think this is a challenge with designing all FFP reticles. The good news is that the illumination really is red dot bright.
I suspect the ATACR will have the same issue since it has the same basic reticle as the NX8. I make sure to have spare batteries readily accessible.
I actually have the opposite impression. I had a Khales K16i and the NX8 to compare to and ended up keeping the NX8 mainly due to the reticle being usable without illumination. The K16i edged the NX8 out in every other category besides reticle and size/form factor. Any black reticle can be hard to see in a dim room or environment…that’s why you have a light mounted to your gun. It’s the same concept as black sights on a handgun being used in conjunction with a white light.
TL;DR
IMO, the reticle doesn’t have to be on at all times to be usable. If the environment dictates, either turn it on or use a white light and problem solved.
Somewhat agree, but mostly disagree. Yes, you lose the center semi-circle under adverse conditions, but the three pointed broad lines at 1x still draws your eye to the center so you’ll still have a point of aim even if you lose illumination.