I recently finished a 14.5” gun that needs an optic. I’m thinking about pulling the 1-8 ATACR that’s currently on my MK12 for the 14.5” and getting something with more top end for the MK12. On paper, the 4-16 and 4-20 ATACRs are close.

Does anyone have hands on with both? Any reason to go for one over the other if 16x would be plenty on the top end?

Just food for thought, but if you're not married to an F1 ATACR, the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm would likely be plenty of scope for your MK12. It's available w/ either the MOAR Reticle or the Mil-R Reticle depending on your preference.

The original MK12 was a 10x, wasn't it? A smaller form factor and lower magnification would be truer to the intent of the original.

Between the two choices from the OP, I'd say 4-16.

The Mk12 or SPR designation means almost nothing for civilians, as we aren't using a rifle in service with the Navy. So that likely means you have a either a 16" or 18" barrel AR-15, which should have respectable accuracy with quality ammo.

Your optics choice should fit your intended use. Higher accuracy requirements & longer target distances -- look for better glass and higher magnification. Moderate target distances and no need for gnat's ass precision -- look for medium magnification.

I'm very familiar with NF optics.

NSX 2.5-10x
- The only model you should consider is the current 2.5-10x42. It's vastly superior to the older models with smaller objective lenses, and they were also called "compact". The glass quality of these scopes are good, but a definite step down from ATACR. NSX scopes are built like tanks. The 2.5-10x is SFP only. Its reticle is likely its biggest shortcoming -- the lines are too fine. The scope is in its element for hunting, but not the best for target shooting. Especially for multiple targets, multiple distances, on the move.

Note that the NSX 3.5-15x is a quality scope, but a little dated. They made FFP models for awhile, which I have. The current models are SFP. If you're looking at this magnification level, jump up to an ATACR.

ATACR 4-16x vs 4-20x
- The 4-16x is available in multiple objective sizes and both SFP and FFP. I have the FFP, haven't looked through a SFP model. This is a quality scope, with great capabilities on both sorta-near and definitely-far targets. I've used it successfully in competition to at least 700 yards.

- The 4-20x is FFP only. The optical quality here is noticeably better than the 4-16x. Something about this NF scope's 5X erector setup puts it in about the same optical quality as their 7-35x ATACRs. The glass quality of the 4-20x is better than that of the 5-25x ATACRs. This is really an outstanding scope, capable of exploiting capabilities of a good rifle-ammo-shooter system.

NX8 -- I'm familiar with the 1-8x, but not the higher magnification models. I've seen some reviews that were disappointing, but that's to be expected when someone compares this line directly to the ATACR line. If you can touch & look through one of these scopes, then they might be a good option.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Just food for thought, but if you're not married to an F1 ATACR, the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm would likely be plenty of scope for your MK12. It's available w/ either the MOAR Reticle or the Mil-R Reticle depending on your preference.

I considered that for a second, but the 16" with 2.5-10 and the 14.5" with a 1-8 would such similar capability to me that it wouldn't be worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The original MK12 was a 10x, wasn't it? A smaller form factor and lower magnification would be truer to the intent of the original.

The original guns did run scopes that topped out in the 9 or 10x range. I'm not into the dead on clone game (thankfully so for my wallet's sake) so I'm open to branching out.

I referenced SPR simply for the type as I felt that most everyone here would be at least passingly familiar with that.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
- The 4-20x is FFP only. The optical quality here is noticeably better than the 4-16x.

This has my attention. I know it's hard to quantify, but how much better? An 8 vs a 10? The price difference is negligible as well as the size/weight increase for something that is significantly better.

quote:

Originally posted by bryanZ06:
I referenced SPR simply for the type as I felt that most everyone here would be at least passingly familiar with that.

Based on some of the posts I see, I think "some would be familiar" is a better statement. Many seem know that an SPR (or MK12) is different than an M4, but require a Google search as to why. Some will state they like the looks of a "xxxxxx" model rifle, without knowing the functional differences between a "xxxxxx" and an M4.

quote:

Originally posted by bryanZ06:
I know it's hard to quantify, but how much better? An 8 vs a 10? The price difference is negligible as well as the size/weight increase for something that is significantly better.

It depends upon the shooter and the use. For banging away at paper targets at shorter distances from a bench -- likely little difference, other than a little higher magnification on the high end.

The improved glass of the 4-20x shows when the shooter demands more from his optics:
- If the shooter has the capabilities to see his own bullet trace and spot his own shot impacts.
- When the shooter wants to better read mirage, and other down-range wind effects.
- When the shooter needs higher resolution for target ID.
- When the shooter is pushing the practical ballistics limits of a cartridge. Say, 223 beyond 500 yards, especially in poor visibility and/or wind.
- When the shooter is rapidly engaging multiple targets, at various distances. This is especially true when the target distances vary greatly, and there is no time/desire to adjust parallax.