Zco lpvo???

#303
dms416 said:
:rolleyes:

I don't use/like QD...

Per my post:


The "sadly" would denote I don't like/want QD; and the mention of wanting a C1 (a non-QD) should reinforce that.

Thus your rant/chastising of QD is misdirected.

Reading...It's fundamental
Click to expand...
I read it as "Sadly, they only do the 1.5" Cantilever in their QD".....as in, you wanted a QD that was NOT 1.5" high. Which is the same reason I reiterated I had the 1.25" version.

When I asked "just out of curiosity...", you had the opportunity to quickly clear that up, but chose the low-road. You saying I was ranting, well, anyone can read my post and see that was anything but the case. I hope for your sake at least that the way you handled this simple exchange makes you feel better about yourself.

I try to treat people on this forum the exact same way I would treat them if I was sitting across from them. It takes a bit of self reflection and objectivity, but IMO the world would be a bit better place with more of that in practice. Glad we got to the bottom of this. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FatBoy
#304
Burdy said:
I read it as "Sadly, they only do the 1.5" Cantilever in their QD".....as in, you wanted a QD that was NOT 1.5" high. Which is the same reason I reiterated I had the 1.25" version.

When I asked "just out of curiosity...", you had the opportunity to quickly clear that up, but chose the low-road. You saying I was ranting, well, anyone can read my post and see that was anything but the case. I hope for your sake at least that the way you handled this simple exchange makes you feel better about yourself.

I try to treat people on this forum the exact same way I would treat them if I was sitting across from them. It takes a bit of self reflection and objectivity, but IMO the world would be a bit better place with more of that in practice. Glad we got to the bottom of this. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, regardless of what conclusion was drawn (which is still bewildering to me), using it as a springboard to launch into some rant and personal agenda is in incredibly POOR taste.

Though I don't disgree with your position on QD, it's incredibly tacky. This is America, and telling people what they need or don't need is poor form...no matter how practical/impractical.

Hence, the level of response you got. I give back what I receive.
 
#305
dms416 said:
Yeah, regardless of what conclusion was drawn (which is still bewildering to me), using it as a springboard to launch into some rant and personal agenda is in incredibly POOR taste.

Though I don't disgree with your position on QD, it's incredibly tacky. This is America, and telling people what they need or don't need is poor form...no matter how practical/impractical.

Hence, the level of response you got. I give back what I receive.
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about dude, but that's ok. All good.
 
#309
I would like to see at least the finalized reticle designs. They have changed a couple times and would love to know what we are actually ending up with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boomslang
#310
TheOE800 said:
What?
Click to expand...

I was planning to put a red dot onto the 12 o´clock position.

Somebody posted a picture in a threat inhere, which showed that the Picatinny rails are just screwed down on the upper rings.
No backstop or anything that would make it a form-fitting connection, so it wasn´t for me then.
 
#311
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa
#312
Burdy said:
I would like to see at least the finalized reticle designs. They have changed a couple times and would love to know what we are actually ending up with.
Click to expand...

Between Jan and March, the Center of the DMR changed along with the 1 mil elevation line and the bottom of the tree.
They also moved the numbers from the far ends and snugged them up to the center line, which I have to admit I kind of like.
 
#313
dms416 said:
They also moved the numbers from the far ends and snugged them up to the center line, which I have to admit I kind of like.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I hoped they stuck with. Changed my mind on paper from HTR to DMR. Hopefully I can see both through the scope at SHOT though before deciding
 
#314
Burdy said:
That is exactly what I hoped they stuck with. Changed my mind on paper from HTR to DMR. Hopefully I can see both through the scope at SHOT though before deciding
Click to expand...

The DMR thorugh-the-scope from IWA?/March looks far better than the original reticle .pdf pic. There's pro's and con's to both. I'd like to see real pics of the HTR and hope they've made similar thoughtful improvements. I can't speak to the Predator reticle...

I'm not a circle-dot, or in this case square-dot enthusiast, so the crosshair of the HTR appeals more to me, though the segmented nature and empty circles makes it a bit harder to read.
 
#315
dms416 said:
The DMR thorugh-the-scope from IWA?/March looks far better than the original reticle .pdf pic. There's pro's and con's to both. I'd like to see real pics of the HTR and hope they've made similar thoughtful improvements. I can't speak to the Predator reticle...

I'm not a circle-dot, or in this case square-dot enthusiast, so the crosshair of the HTR appeals more to me, though the segmented nature and empty circles makes it a bit harder to read.
Click to expand...
For me, for this type of optic, my brain parses the whole numbers of the DMR a bit quicker by just splitting to the half mil if I need to. But, yes, you never really know how a paper reticle is going to resolve in real life.
 
#316
Jayjay1 said:
Somebody posted a picture in a threat inhere, which showed that the Picatinny rails are just screwed down on the upper rings.
No backstop or anything that would make it a form-fitting connection, so it wasn´t for me then.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The attachment system uses two tapered bosses… I don’t think you understand how the top ring mount system works.
 
#319
TheOE800 said:
What are you talking about? The attachment system uses two tapered bosses… I don’t think you understand how the top ring mount system works.
Click to expand...

I've had their Block Mount and it was just flat aluminum with two threaded holes. No lugs, bosses, or anything of the sort. I swapped it for an Era Tac because the accessory mount looked janky. It was a super nice part, I just didn't trust an LRF on it.
 
#322
Jayjay1 said:
Well, actually yes.

I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you afterwards ...
You decide.
:devilish:
Click to expand...
Glassaholic said:
How about a dual, you use your ZCO 2-10 and I'll use my March 1.5-15, we walk 100 paces apart, turn and... ;)
Click to expand...
But it would be fun to have the ZCO 2-10 and March 1.5-15 side by side, so why don't you fly out to Florida and we'll shoot together and compare optics ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa, Makinchips208 and plong
#327
M4guru said:
I've had their Block Mount and it was just flat aluminum with two threaded holes. No lugs, bosses, or anything of the sort. I swapped it for an Era Tac because the accessory mount looked janky. It was a super nice part, I just didn't trust an LRF on it.
Click to expand...
I must have missed something because I thought we were talking about Area 419 mount, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M4guru
#329
All right, back from the range, was able to zero it.

What I realized, the illumination zero is a bit squishy.
You have to concentrate to not miss it, and if you don´t it is also easy to "overtravel" it.

Then something a bit odd happened.
After boresighting and making the first two shots, I corrected elevation and windage, as usual.
But the following shot was off, not where it should be after the correction.
I was wondering where that came from.

So I´ve made another shot, and the hit was where it was supposed to be, same thing with the 3rd one.
Wth?
To test it, I turned 10 clicks up und ten clicks left, the first shot was off, the 2nd and 3rd were where they should be.

Going back to zero it happened again, all in all I could repeat it four times, before I ran out of ammo (had only 20 rounds with me to make a fast zero).

I have no explanation at this point.
If it would be the mount, it would happen after shooting, but not after turning the knobs.

Any explanation?
:unsure:
 
#330
Jayjay1 said:
Which looks very nice and sturdy.
But from my understanding, the mount for a co-optic on 12 o´clock is only force-fitting.

That´s a no-no for me.
Click to expand...

Again, the new mounts are not force fit and have indexing similar to Hawkins Precision.

0M6A0069.jpg
 
#332
Burdy said:
Just get the Spuhrs...or whatever that is a solid mount. The optic is fairly hefty, not sure I would want a lightweight mount. The thing about the Spuhrs is the amount of coverage they offer to protect the optic.
Click to expand...

Spuhr is way too heavy. And weight is not required for something to be strong. Proper engineering and manufacturing is required.

Burdy said:
Maybe its just me, but if I wanted a lightweight setup, I would likely start with a different optic.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one. I still don't understand the purpose or intent of this scope. It seems that a significant target audience has been missed by the weight of the scope, and the 36mm tube limiting the mounting options. I am still assessing it as there are not really any comparable options. But I can't see this over a TT315M, the TT is virtually the same weight without the 36mm issue. With a lightweight 34mm mount, the TT package will be lighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PappyM3 and TheOE800
#333
NLivingston said:
I might know a guy who sells 36mm cantilever mounts that arent QD.... (also some of the best mounts on the market)

www.area419.com

Area 419 Cantilevered Tactical One-Piece Scope Mount

These mounts come with a small pic section on the front cap. For an extended Diving Board mount, CLICK HERE
www.area419.com www.area419.com
Click to expand...
I didn't realize 419 made cantilever mounts. Still not in the super lightweight realm, but just under 8oz is at least getting more realistic. It sounds like that 8oz may include the pic rail, so maybe closer to 7oz without it.
 
#334
NC_Libertarian said:
I didn't realize 419 made cantilever mounts. Still not in the super lightweight realm, but just under 8oz is at least getting more realistic. It sounds like that 8oz may include the pic rail, so maybe closer to 7oz without it.
Click to expand...
The 419 mounts are fantastic, but my 30mm non-cantilever 1.26” high mount with the small picatinny on top is 8 oz.

It should be heavier with the cantilever, 36mm rings and 1.54” height.
 
#335
NC_Libertarian said:
I didn't realize 419 made cantilever mounts. Still not in the super lightweight realm, but just under 8oz is at least getting more realistic. It sounds like that 8oz may include the pic rail, so maybe closer to 7oz without it.
Click to expand...
It appears Tier One now makes a 36mm cantilever mount at 7oz
tier-one-usa.com

Cantilever Scope Mount | TIER ONE®

// FREE SHIPPING - LIFETIME WARRANTY // - Cantilever scope mount, monolithic, for AR15, AR10 and precision rifle application. The most optically accurate mounts in the world. 7075T6 aluminum. This will get you on target quicker. Click here for more.
tier-one-usa.com tier-one-usa.com

Edit: fixed the link
 
Last edited:
#338
PappyM3 said:
It appears Tier One now makes a 36mm cantilever mount at 7oz
tier-one-usa.com

Cantilever Scope Mount | TIER ONE®

// FREE SHIPPING - LIFETIME WARRANTY // - Cantilever scope mount, monolithic, for AR15, AR10 and precision rifle application. The most optically accurate mounts in the world. 7075T6 aluminum. This will get you on target quicker. Click here for more.
tier-one-usa.com tier-one-usa.com

Edit: fixed the link
Click to expand...
Those must be fairly new, I looked on Tier One site a few months back.

Still not super light, but at least a reasonable option at a bit under 8oz.

Doesn't convince me that a TT315M is not a better option. Has a price been posted for the ZCO210? That would be the only advantage I can see over the TT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PappyM3
#339
NC_Libertarian said:
Doesn't convince me that a TT315M is not a better option. Has a price been posted for the ZCO210? That would be the only advantage I can see over the TT.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that with the 315M. Unless you’re a big Gen 3xr fan…maybe but despite the weight it’s I big profile for what it is. I’d sooner do a S&B 5-20 over the 315M
 
  • Wow
Reactions: TheOE800
#340
dms416 said:
Been there, done that with the 315M. Unless you’re a big Gen 3xr fan…maybe but despite the weight it’s I big profile for what it is. I’d sooner do a S&B 5-20 over the 315M
Click to expand...
What did you not like about the 315M? I have never seen one in person. I have a TT525, and a guy at the range has a TT315P I have shot a couple of times. The 315M is certainly longer than the ZC210 or even the S&B 5-20, but I don't see that as an issue unless you are looking to use a clip on. Weight would be more important to me. Feel free to point out if I am missing a drawback on that one.

As for the 3XR, I don't get overly hung up on reticles, unless they are really bad. I get that some people have issues with the TT reticles, but I don't see any major issue with them. Get proficient with whatever you have by training.

The S&B 5-20 I had not really considered. Maybe. But it is heavier, and the 5x min might be an issue depending in what you are doing.
 
#341
NC_Libertarian said:
Get proficient with whatever you have by training.
Click to expand...

Between having to use issued optics with outdated reticles and the concept of paying ZCO/TT/S&B money for a personal scope to be blase about a key feature... FUCK THAT. Reticle selection is not to be overlooked for purpose and for preference.

NC_Libertarian said:
But it is heavier, and the 5x min might be an issue depending in what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Funny you're willing to tough it out with a reticle, but 3 ounces in change is "heavy".


To answer your question though, it's not so much about the weight as it is the distribution (and ultimately how it affects balance). Thus any weight "savings" compared to a 30-32oz was imperceptible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa
#344
dms416 said:
Because you think the manufacturer assigns a purpose rather than the user trying to fill a void or need as best they can.
Click to expand...
I would like to think most everyone here builds to a purpose. The manufacture, in ZCOs case, built it to a specific contract use case.

The 3-15 has several competitors that could fill the void. The 2-10 ZCO. Not so much.

The fact that these two are contention with each other in any use case I can think of, speaks to the fact that Zero Compromise did have a compromise in this 2-10...weight. But I am still buying one.
 
Last edited:
#345
dms416 said:
Funny you're willing to tough it out with a reticle, but 3 ounces in change is "heavy".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't define a TT reticle as something that needs "toughing out". My point is, if you get proficient with whatever you are using, finding holds is automatic. Unless the reticle is really bad, which I don;t classify the TT.

As for 3 ounces, it is not really 3 ounces. The S&B is 3 ounces heavier than the ZC210/TT315M, which are 3-5 ounces heavier than what should be the target weight for a scope in the space I seek, plus the 36mm tube forces you to carry another 2-3 ounces because the mounts are heavier. So looking at it as a system, which is how everything should be examined, it is way over 3 ounces difference. Since the target system weight can't be obtained, other than with a March 1.5-15 (and its own performance trade-offs), now you are faced with weigh trade-offs for specific performance characteristics.

So I don't see it as 3 ounces, I see it as ANOTHER 3 ounces.
dms416 said:
To answer your question though, it's not so much about the weight as it is the distribution (and ultimately how it affects balance). Thus any weight "savings" compared to a 30-32oz was imperceptible.
Click to expand...
I guess I would need to see what you describe for myself. Unfortunately, that will probably never happen. I don't have any shooters around me that do this, so almost everything I do or try is on my dime. I can afford an alpha-class scope here and there, but trying a bunch of different ones just to see what I like is not in my capability. I need to figure out what is likely best and make one move.
 
#346
Burdy said:
I still don't understand the cross shopping between the ZCO 2-10 and the TT 3-15. These were built for two very distinctly different purposes.
Click to expand...
The fact that people are cross-shopping illustrates the fact that the ZC210 didn't hit the mark for many consumers.

Including yourself, based on your later post. You are getting one despite the fact it doesn't check all of your boxes either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbuck88, TheOE800 and dms416
#347
NC_Libertarian said:
The fact that people are cross-shopping illustrates the fact that the ZC210 didn't hit the mark for many consumers.

Including yourself, based on your later post. You are getting one despite the fact it doesn't check all of your boxes either.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a weird one. Ultimately I feel it would be at home most on SCAR/UXR type platforms or AR-10 frame semi-auto. I am not happy about the weight, either, and you are correct in your assessment that it moves the entire systems weight up, which is a consideration. I am mainly curious if the eyebox, forgiveness, reticle and FOV will "wow" me into dismissing the weight factor. If it doesn't, I expect it won't stay around as the above mentioned weapon systems aren't really my cup of tea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa
#348
Burdy said:
Yeah, it's a weird one. Ultimately I feel it would be at home most on SCAR/UXR type platforms or AR-10 frame semi-auto. I am not happy about the weight, either, and you are correct in your assessment that it moves the entire systems weight up, which is a consideration. I am mainly curious if the eyebox, forgiveness, reticle and FOV will "wow" me into dismissing the weight factor. If it doesn't, I expect it won't stay around as the above mentioned weapon systems aren't really my cup of tea.
Click to expand...
Ive stayed out of this discussion but followed with mild interest, but will insert my (worthless) opinion again.

IMO is still that it's too heavy and the objective lens is too small.
Sure on a big heavy gun it'll be less of an issue but weight is weight and it all adds up.

Both this scope and the Mark 5 2-10 don't make much sense to me. They clearly just tool their base optical/mechanical design and changed as little as possible to make a 2-10. It must be for a military contract and these civilian models are just a backup market (Like AI with the ASR/AXSR).

If March can make a 10.6" 24oz 1.5-15x42 and a 8.5" long 21oz 1-10, and many other 1-8/10s exist that are less than 22oz, you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to suggest this is the ultimate, zero compromises, 2-10 LPVO/MPVO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOE800, PappyM3 and VargmatII
#349
Burdy said:
Yeah, it's a weird one. Ultimately I feel it would be at home most on SCAR/UXR type platforms or AR-10 frame semi-auto. I am not happy about the weight, either, and you are correct in your assessment that it moves the entire systems weight up, which is a consideration. I am mainly curious if the eyebox, forgiveness, reticle and FOV will "wow" me into dismissing the weight factor. If it doesn't, I expect it won't stay around as the above mentioned weapon systems aren't really my cup of tea.
Click to expand...
I expect that eyebox, etc will be excellent on the scope. Whether this is worth the weight will depend on the user and application.

And I do agree that it seems like a SCAR/AR10/DMR-ish AR15 is where this would fit. But those are typically carried by someone some extended distances, where weight is a factor. The ZC210 seems to miss this factor.

For me, I do Run n Guns, and would like to find a partner to do a Mammoth Challenge next year. When you have to actually carry the weapon farther than from your car to the shooting bench, weight matters. You know the saying "ounces become pounds". Well, at nearly 60 years old, ounces become about 3 pounds for me. So weight means more to me than to some. A 25 year old professional soldier won't care much about 3 ounces; I am not that dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxwell and Texascbr
#350
beetroot said:
IMO is still that it's too heavy and the objective lens is too small.
Sure on a big heavy gun it'll be less of an issue but weight is weight and it all adds up.

Both this scope and the Mark 5 2-10 don't make much sense to me. They clearly just tool their base optical/mechanical design and changed as little as possible to make a 2-10. It must be for a military contract and these civilian models are just a backup market (Like AI with the ASR/AXSR).
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.
beetroot said:
If March can make a 10.6" 24oz 1.5-15x42 and a 8.5" long 21oz 1-10, and many other 1-8/10s exist that are less than 22oz, you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to suggest this is the ultimate, zero compromises, 2-10 LPVO/MPVO.
Click to expand...
I have a March 1-10, the original 33/30mm model. It weighs 19oz. But it has its own trade-offs in the optical department.

For starters, the nature of anything with a 10x erector is that the eyebox is not fun at/near max magnification. The short overall length means the DOF is narrow, requiring a lot of side focus manipulation if you are covering a wide range of distances. And the image at/near max is not great, a sacrifice made to have a true 1x at the bottom. (Though my understanding with the 1.5-15 doesn't have as much of a sacrifice at max, but still does have some). For my normal Run N Gun rifle that rarely sees a target over 300yds, and almost never sees one over 400yds, no problem. But when we had a DMR-style match last weekend with multiple targets 400-600yds, the optical deficiencies showed themselves.

I expect the 1.5-15 to have similar trade-offs, otherwise it would be my easy choice. It checks every other box for weight, length, objective size, max mag range, tube size, etc.

I admire the effort March has made to move the scale on what a scope can be, I am just not sure they have completely hit the target. I get wanting to have 10x erectors to stand out. But their 8x erector would have fewer trade-offs. I would rather have an optically-superior and less sensitive 1-8x than the 1-10x. Same for the MPVO, I would prefer and optically-superior 1.5-12x or 2-16x to the 1.5-15x. Or at least how I expect the 1.5-15x to be. Maybe I will think differently when I get to actually use a 1.5-15.

But all of this is a subject to pursue in a different thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve123, TheOE800 and Texascbr
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

netranger6
AI AX and ZCO
Replies
14
Views
732
M8541Reaper
M8541Reaper
U
ZCO customer service
Replies
24
Views
669
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
brand692
SOLD WTT NIB FDE ZCo 5-27 MPCT2X for TT
Replies
1
Views
248
brand692
brand692
D
Tangent theta ....ZCO.....Night Force ATACR.....
Replies
76
Views
4K
Secant
Secant
SD Carpenter
Optics Vortex gen 3 1-10 w/ bobro qd mount
Replies
1
Views
207
SD Carpenter
SD Carpenter
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts