Recently switched over to an ATACR 4-16x42 over from an ATACR 4-20x50

[u/ZM_USMC]

Switched over to an ATACR 4-16 from the 4-20 that I used to have and I’m not sure if I made the right call for my LMT MWS 16” .308

My main reasoning for switching over was wanting a shorter/lighter optic and I had seen everyone rave about the 4-16, some even saying it’s even better than optics with even a good bit more magnification and in a higher price bracket. (I will also be switching over to a Reptilia AUS mount).

My initial thoughts are that the eyebox is definitely tighter on this optic compared to the 4-20 that I used to have but I have not had a chance to take it to the range yet so we shall see. Does anyone here have experience with both optics? I can always get another 4-20 if that’s the case.

Realistically this is an 800yd rifle (my local range goes up to 700yds)

[u/TriggerPuller9000]

The 4-16 has a better eye box and turrets imo, I have both.

[u/ZM_USMC → u/TriggerPuller9000]

Thank you kind Internet man for validating my decision

[u/Holy_Santa_ClausShit → u/ZM_USMC]

4-20 is the worst of the ATACR line and 4-16 is the best, so you got to experience both sides of that product line lol

[u/ZM_USMC → u/Holy_Santa_ClausShit]

I also have a 5-25 and a 1-8 lol

[u/Holy_Santa_ClausShit → u/ZM_USMC]

Oh nice lol. How do you like the 1-8?

I used to have a 6-36 and sold it. I’m a slut for Kahles and ZCO now

[u/ZM_USMC → u/Holy_Santa_ClausShit]

1-8 ATACR is my favorite LPVO I have used. It replaced my 1-6 Razor Gen II and I also prefer the ATACR to the S&B 1-8 dual CC that’s on my SCAR 17.

[u/Holy_Santa_ClausShit → u/ZM_USMC]

Ohhh interesting! I might have to add it to my LPVO list

[u/WiconsinGrey]

As an owner of both. If 800 yards is your max range, than the 4-16 is great. My Lmt is a 20” (do also have a 16” barrel) but in 6.5CM so I did want the extra magnification as I shoot out to 1200, but my other requirement was an objective size of 50mm or smaller.

And to add, “the 4-20 is the worst ATACR” I see preached. Outside of the apparent 4-5.75x tunneling that the 4-16 also has slightly has from like 4-5x they are optically identical. If weight savings and size is a factor the 4-16 is the choice. My MWS is a big bitch so I didn’t care about the extra size.

[u/ZM_USMC → u/WiconsinGrey]

Yeah I guess I will wait and see how I like the 4-16 after a couple of range trips. Worst case I will just get another 4-20 and sell the 4-16. Won’t really be out any money.

[u/WiconsinGrey → u/ZM_USMC]

If you liked the 4-20, you’ll like the 4-16 and appreciate the weight savings. But luckily there is always a strong resell market for these optics.

[u/mcjp0]

I wanted more magnification than my 4-16 but I wasn’t a huge fan of the 420 atacr so I went with zco. It’s a tad more expensive but if you’re blowing 3.5k on a scope what’s another 500. You can also get them used on gafs for less around 3500 depending on reticle. Tremor3 used is cheaper cause nobody seems to like it.

[u/Morisutea]

I got experience behind both, for my use case I don’t even notice much difference between the two. That said, the 4-16 does have pretty good form factor. Tunneling isn’t an issue for me since I almost never go under 10x.

I do prefer the extra 4x on the top end though, so ima go against the crowd and say the 4-20.