ATACR 4-16x42 F1 vs. SHV 4-14x50 F1

C

Carson

CGN Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Ontario
I’m looking for a scope to top my Tikka CTR .308 for PRS style shooting.
After a month of scouring the web but not handling them, I’ve narrowed the choices down to these two.
They have identical reticles, similar weights, fields of view and other features. So my question to those that have handled both, is the ATACR $1400.00 better?
If there is that big a difference in resolution and repeatability I’ll spend the extra, but how much do I gain?
 
Tenebraex Flip Covers, DigIllum digital reticle illumination, a throw lever and somewhat beefier engineering. IMO diminishing returns starts hitting pretty hard once you cross $2K and i doubt you are going to be a living remake of Marky mark in Lone survivor so the extra durability is questionable in use.

Precisionrifleblog makes great articles going over what matters most, for example from a statiscal analysis, a better chambering would be a much more effective bang for your buck than the ATACR
How-Much-Does-It-Matter-Summary.png

Personally i would say the money is better spent on practice or a 6/6.5mm rifle, but if the money is burning a hole in your pocket it isn't unreasonable to spring for the ATACR.

i think Shia LeBeouf said it best
-Don't let you dreams be dreams.
 
Thank you for your insight.

I specifically chose .308 as a long range "beginners" chambering, mostly due to the availabilty of good factory ammo and the wealth of loading data for a someone just starting out.


Oh, and the ATACR got delivered today :d
Figured that if it lived up to the hype, it would be one piece of equipment that would grow with me in the sport.
 
Good decision, I kinda wish I went for the BEST out of the gate... Would have saved me well over 6k in sold/bought scopes, well just the zeiss and a SB.... But yeah, good choice spending $$$ on glass, its something you'll keep for years.
 
I have an NXS on my .338 and love it. Was considering an ATACR but the extra cash for nothing much more in options turned me away. That being said I just ordered a SHV F1 for my Ruger RPR so we'll see how it compares to my NXS
 
I've got the SHV F1 coming for my FNAR. It's the first time I've ever paid more for the optic than the rifle, so I'm kinda anxious to see it in action.
 
It may be hard to see the added benefit for cost, but that's what you get when you step up to higher quality optics.

The HUGE benefit you get from the F1 is FFP, and wide viewing angle. Where others won't see the returns in this, having an accurate reticle at any distance is very valuable much of the time (especially in PRS), but coupled with wide viewing angles allow you to increase your ability to call wind, range holdovers, and hit targets. Many people don't see this when considering optics and the FFP and SFP arguement.

The ATACR will be a good scope as long as you own rifles. Not a bad decision.

Practice with the .308. It'll teach you things better cartridges won't at shorter, more avialable distances. Will it be easier? No. But you have to consider if that's your goal at the moment.

My biggest thought I push is go out shooting to LEARN. If you don't, you're wasting your time.
 
"HD" is marketing, for ALL manuftures.

True, ATACR has better glass than the NSX, and SHV, etc. I think the F1 has even better glass than the standard ATACR. Either way, HD is BS. Just quality of glass and filters/coatings applied to it in a marketing gimmick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom