I am looking to upgrade scopes soon and these two are on top of my list. I've done a little research on Nightforce but this will be my first one to buy. Is the glass in these two scopes the same or is one better than the other? Anybody recommend one over the other? It will be going on my main hunting rifle. Sorry for my ignorance as this will be my first "top of the line" scope to me and want to be sure to get the better one. (even tho i think they're probably discernible at this point, for my eyes anyway).

What are you going to do with it?

Extremes on both end, dawn, dusk, night, how far do you plan to try and hit something?

From what I have read, the NX8 is more of an alternative to the NXS in a shorter , lighter package . Great HD glass and great diligium illumination.

i dont think you can compare it to the ATACR, which is more comparable to a tank.

I'll have my 4-32x50 NX8 tomorrow, I can compare it to my Swaro Z6 5-25X50 but my eyes are old, so i wont be an expert witness.

Want something that gives me the brightest/best image at dawn and dusk. I'm hunting a big highline and routinely see deer and hogs from 70 - 730 yards. Back end of food plot is at 400 and would like to be able to identify any buck that comes out at dawn and dusk. I won't shoot at a deer at 700 but will a hog when the opportunity arises... not a big fan of turning turrets and thinking I would rather have the MOA reticle for anything between 400-730 yds.

NX8 will do all that.

I've shown lots of people MOA and Mil scopes. Then helped them get to 800 yards with both kinds. Zero people have sold their Mil scopes and bought MOA. More than I can remember have sold their MOA scopes and bought all Mil scopes. Not from me pushing ome or the other, they made up their minds for themselves.

Mils are easier to use.

Thank you for your input. And the reason I said MOA is just due to my mind being geared that way. I guess I was thinking I could range known spots on the highline and use a ballistic app to calculate the drop in yards/MOA and could just use the MOA reticle for my holdover. (novice way of thinking I'm sure as I have never taken a long range shooting class or been behind a MIL reticle)

Mils are way easier to use. MOA is more precise. At your max of 700 yards 1/10 mil = 2.52” while 1/4 moa = 1.83”. Those will be your minimum dialing increments. For hunting and most competitive shooting mil works just fine. Moa shines in precision benchrest. I shoot both but do not have the shooting skills to tell the difference.

I was trying to figure out the same thing between the two. They both use the same glass from what I was told by nightforce. The biggest difference is the NX8 uses a 30mm tube where the ATACR uses a 34mm tube. So in theory you will get a little better low light transmission through the ATACR and more elevation and windage.

Atacr is an incredible scope but it is heavy, if your not doing ng alot of hiking with it doesnt really matter, the 5x25 ATACR a 400yd shot feels like 200 yds on my set up, I can shoot a basket ball sized group at 1300 yards with 6.5 .284

Range objects with a laser range finder.

I grew up in America using an inch tape measure, and can operate fractions just fine, I do it every day.

Mils are faster and easier for shooting distance. No one that has come to my place to learn how, has regretted it.

Same glass does not mean same optical quality. The glass could be treated differently in regards to coatings. And optical placement/layout matters. Most people do not believe the nx8 will be optically the same as the atacr line. It will be closer to the nxs. Not saying this is bad, just not atacr great. If it was the same optically ability why would people get the atacr? Me personally I would lean atacr as the price is close enough and I care more about optical quality than mag range. Also depending on what your criteria is will determine how good it is optically. Low light ability, contrast, color shift, all of these are different ways to evaluate a scope.

For example my pst 2 is closer to my mk 5 on contrast than it is on low light ability.

There is a lot of people interested to see how the 8x erector holds up in terms of optical quality throughout mag range and eye Box. I believe the nx8 will be a great scope but as they are just now getting into people’s hands most people don’t know the differences between nxs, nx8 and atacr in terms of actual performance.

Pure optical ability is nowhere near the top priority when I make a decision on which scope to buy. Tracking, adjustments running true, ability to hold POI, etc are much more important to me. When you get to the $1500 class of scopes, glass isn't going to be a problem, ever. My scopes are aiming devices first and foremost.

Same here. People agonize over the slightest differences in optical clarity when there a way more important things going on.

Agree. But I am assuming nightforce quality would be there. Comparing other brands are going to led to discussion. Some of them warranted some of them perception.

To me those are min standards to get a scope at the 2k price point

Just got back from the range. NX8 is awesome, The SHV was just as clear to my eyes The old Leupold 4.5-14X40, 30mm tube was way out classed by both. I didnt have my Swarovski, so I couldn't compare.

But was it as good as the Athlon?

new NX8's are awesome for the price point. I ordered a ton of them and most have sold very quick. ATACR seems to still win on glass quality and eye box in my opinion but for magnification for the dollar, the new 2.5-20 and 4-32 is hard to beat. They're also much lighter weight than the ATACR. I personally prefer mils but most of my pre orders have been for the MOAR system. It's all preference. For me, my brain works better thinking in tenths than quarters.