ZCO 420 vs NF 420 on a gas gun.

#51
Has anyone else here actually compared the scopes mentioned? I compared all 3 scopes, ZCO 4-20, ATACR 4-16 and ATACR 4-20.
In my opinion (and with my examples)

The atacr 4-20 has wider fov, is sharper in the edges, has less fisheye distortion and a significantly more forgiving eyebox than the zco 4-20. Not to say that the ZCO was a bad scope, it's pretty impressive, but the NF was ever so slightly better in all catagories except for the eyebox. The eyebox on the ATACR is significantly better than the ZCO. The only area where the ZCO won out was the lower magnification. It had less tunneling, and is more compact.

The 4-20 is like a 4-16 with 4x more on the top end and slightly clearer, but it retains all of the positive attributes of the 4-16.

I think the ZCO struggles compared to the NF because it's a short design, so it makes sense the eye relief is more critical and fov is less.

I'd rank them 4-20 ATACR > 4-20 ZCO > 4-16 ATACR.

Infact my 4-20 is sharper than my 7-35 and 5-25 ATACR.
 
#52
physhphude said:
Has anyone else here actually compared the scopes mentioned? I compared all 3 scopes, ZCO 4-20, ATACR 4-16 and ATACR 4-20.
In my opinion (and with my examples)

The atacr 4-20 has wider fov, is sharper in the edges, has less fisheye distortion and a significantly more forgiving eyebox than the zco 4-20. Not to say that the ZCO was a bad scope, it's pretty impressive, but the NF was ever so slightly better in all catagories except for the eyebox. The eyebox on the ATACR is significantly better than the ZCO. The only area where the ZCO won out was the lower magnification. It had less tunneling, and is more compact.

The 4-20 is like a 4-16 with 4x more on the top end and slightly clearer, but it retains all of the positive attributes of the 4-16.

I think the ZCO struggles compared to the NF because it's a short design, so it makes sense the eye relief is more critical and fov is less.

I'd rank them 4-20 ATACR > 4-20 ZCO > 4-16 ATACR.

Infact my 4-20 is sharper than my 7-35 and 5-25 ATACR.
Click to expand...


Your findings of the ZCO go against pretty much every post I’ve seen, my personal experience and detailed reviews from @Glassaholic and @Lowlight ‘s experience. Did you set up the scopes to your eye? Your experience with the ZC420 vs those Nightforce scopes are the first time I’ve seen an experience you described.

- Richard
 
  • Like
Reactions: wolffman and DeathBeforeDismount
#53
www.snipershide.com

Rifle Scopes - ZCO ZC420 v Kahles K318i v Schmidt Ultra Shorts v Minox ZP5

Three scopes walk into a bar, the first is a ZCO, the second a Kahles and the third a Schmidt… and so the joke goes, but in reality, it was 6 scopes, and Minox joined the party as well and the punchline of the joke is… well read on and we’ll get there. Right before SHOT 2018 I was thrilled to...
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com


@Glassaholic

Conclusion
"If we consider this evaluation to be a battle between the alpha class ultra shorts the verdict is still out as more time needs to be had behind the ZCO in differing conditions (I’ve had plenty of time behind the K318i and the Schmidt’s in the past); however, based on my day with the ZCO (and comparing with the others) I feel pretty confident in saying the new ZCO ZC420 will more than likely take the crown as the new Ultra Short to “rule them all”. Does that mean the Kahles and Schmidt should be thrown into the trash heap, certainly not, they are all worthy of alpha class (and easily beat lesser scopes) but have their pros and cons, but what ZCO has done with their first release is nothing short of amazing and worthy of consideration if you are in the market for an Ultra Short scope, and if you don’t require greater than 15x of magnification then the ZP5 3-15x50 proves itself as a very worthy contender itself (especially at some of the used prices you can find these scopes for). Should you go out and sell your Schmidt US 3-20 to pick up the ZCO, well that's more of a personal question on whether or not you feel the ZCO can give you an edge you don't already have, if you're very particular with turrets and reticles then the answer might be yes, but both the Schmidt and the Kahles are very worthy contenders and will serve their respective shooters well for years to come.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: wolffman and physhphude
#54
www.snipershide.com

Rifle Scopes - Zero Compromise 420......best all do all optic on market??

So, I’ve spent most of today finger banging another members 420 mpct2 most of the day. (Don’t look at it with a black light) Gonna gloss over some of this as the design is extemely close to the 527. Glass - alpha glass. Nuff said. It’s awesome. Today was bright sunlight. So I can’t tell you...
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com

@Dthomas3523

So, I’ve spent most of today finger banging another members 420 mpct2 most of the day. (Don’t look at it with a black light)

Gonna gloss over some of this as the design is extemely close to the 527.

Glass - alpha glass. Nuff said. It’s awesome. Today was bright sunlight. So I can’t tell you how it holds up to the 56mm of the 527 in low light. I’m sure it’s fine

Size - there are pics on another thread next to a k318i. It does look a bit more forgiving in the mounting room compared to a 318i. But I don’t have one here to compare.

Of course it’s a super short and it’s definitely short

Weight - not a brick, but definitely not an ultra light

Eyebox - as good or better than the 527. Seems to be a really forgiving eye box (of course it could just seem badass because it won’t go past 20x)

Turrets - holy shit. They got it right big time. Zcomp has been refining the turret feel since inception. They have absolutely gotten it right. As good or better than the windage turrets that have been getting good feedback.

The lock slides up and down with the perfect amount of tension.

It’s a sample size of one, but if this is indicative of where zcomp is with the current turret feel on all scopes........fucking stop now. You nailed it.

Summary:

This optic can do it all. Has 4x (no tunneling that I saw) for hunting. And 20x that is plenty for reaching out to 1k+.

It’s short though that it can be used in short barreled bullpup rifles without being too close to the muzzle blast.

It’s also short enough to look good in a gas gun or be short enough for NVG attachments when you have limited rail space in front.

And it’s a tank with the 36mm tube.

There’s two ways to look at this:

Why buy a 420 for only $100 less than a 527. You only give up 1x on low end and you gain 7x.

Why spend the extra $100 for the 527 just to get 7x when the 420 does everyone else in a shorter package?

The answer depends on your intended use and IMO, overall budget.

Can only afford a single Alpha scope and you might want it to pull double or triple duty on a gas gun, bolt gun, and 22?

Buy a 420

Only going on a bolt or precision gas gun and have zero need for the short optic??
Go 527.

Just like it’s big brother, it’s defintely worth the extra $6-900 more than the equivalent kahles. No questioning that it’s better.

It’s shorter than the Schmidt ultra short, has better ergonomics, and better reticle (personal opinion). So I would choose the zcomp over the Schmidt as well.


Bottom line:

This is a compact option that punches like a full size.

My advice, buy a 527 and a 420."
 
#55
www.snipershide.com

Zero Compromise Optics’ ZC420 MPCT1 Scope Review

BigJimFish reviews the ZC420 rifle scope with the MPCT1 reticle from Zero Compromise Optics, the new high-end scope company co-owned by Jeff Huber of Nightforce and Kahles fame.
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com

Summary and Conclusion:

"The ZCO 420 surprised me with its optical performance. I expected it to be good, but I did not expect the margin by which I felt it exceeded the S&B and USO in optical performance, especially given its much smaller ultra-short physique and the compromises in performance that typically entails. When shooting the ZCO, I was pretty impressed to occasionally clearly see my .22lr bullet in flight at 200yds and be able to make effective adjustments based on it. I was also amazed at it’s handling of mirage to the point that I thought their might be some new special sauce I needed to learn about.

Mechanically, the ZCO was equally impressive. Tracking, click magnitude, reticle size, cant, even parallax labeling were absolutely spot on. The clicks even had the positive “clicky” feel the market seems to want without the inability to make just one click at a time that usually comes with such a feel. In adding the locking feature to the turrets, ZCO did so without introducing the substantial lash I feared. Notably, ZCO provides substantially more diopter range than average. A little feature, unless you need it. The only thing lacking execution is how easy it is to accidentally turn on the illumination and how relatively dim max illumination is, but even in the event of inadvertent and unnoticed illumination, a complicated computerized babysitter is included to put it back to sleep before your battery dies.

The decision to create a new optics company, with real facilities and proprietary optical designs, to enter the crowded high-end market without even a legacy nameplate, was a bold one. It’s a tremendous amount of investment risk. The product ZCO is producing exceeded my expectations and, from what I can see, sales are exceeding theirs."
 
#56
www.snipershide.com

Jeff Huber of Zero Compromise Interview

https://theeverydaysniper.podbean.com/e/the-everyday-sniper-episode-244-jeff-huber-zero-compromise-optics-interview/
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com


www.snipershide.com

Jeff Huber of Zero Compromise Interview

https://theeverydaysniper.podbean.com/e/the-everyday-sniper-episode-244-jeff-huber-zero-compromise-optics-interview/
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com

Excellent podcast @Lowlight and @[email protected]

edit: And here's Frank's new book with the ZC420 he mentions on top

9781951115104_p0_v2_s600x595.jpg
 
#57
physhphude said:
Has anyone else here actually compared the scopes mentioned? I compared all 3 scopes, ZCO 4-20, ATACR 4-16 and ATACR 4-20.
In my opinion (and with my examples)

The atacr 4-20 has wider fov, is sharper in the edges, has less fisheye distortion and a significantly more forgiving eyebox than the zco 4-20. Not to say that the ZCO was a bad scope, it's pretty impressive, but the NF was ever so slightly better in all catagories except for the eyebox. The eyebox on the ATACR is significantly better than the ZCO. The only area where the ZCO won out was the lower magnification. It had less tunneling, and is more compact.

The 4-20 is like a 4-16 with 4x more on the top end and slightly clearer, but it retains all of the positive attributes of the 4-16.

I think the ZCO struggles compared to the NF because it's a short design, so it makes sense the eye relief is more critical and fov is less.

I'd rank them 4-20 ATACR > 4-20 ZCO > 4-16 ATACR.

Infact my 4-20 is sharper than my 7-35 and 5-25 ATACR.
Click to expand...
This is legitimately the first post I’ve seen putting the NF above the ZCO. Interesting

I haven’t looked through the ZCO but didn’t think my 4-20 was enough of a step above my 4-16 to justify giving up the low profile turret and compact design of the 4-16. I also didn’t like the tunneling to 5.5 on the 4-20 given the use of the optic.

I haven’t owned a NF I thought was better than my 735 NF and my ZCO 527 is slightly better than that
 
#58
hafejd30 said:
This is legitimately the first post I’ve seen putting the NF above the ZCO. Interesting

I haven’t looked through the ZCO but didn’t think my 4-20 was enough of a step above my 4-16 to justify giving up the low profile turret and compact design of the 4-16. I also didn’t like the tunneling to 5.5 on the 4-20 given the use of the optic.

I haven’t owned a NF I thought was better than my 735 NF and my ZCO 527 is slightly better than that
Click to expand...

And the current ZCO's are better than the older ZCO's...
 
#59
CSTactical said:
And the current ZCO's are better than the older ZCO's...
Click to expand...
Maybe atacr is that much better now to? I don’t know.

I had probably one of the first 4-20 atacr. Maybe I’m just not picky enough but when I got it I was hoping to see an upgrade in the glass.

Comparing it to whatever atacr models I had at the time struck me as just another atacr. I sold it to get the ZCO which felt like a noticeable upgrade in comparison
 
#60
hafejd30 said:
Maybe atacr is that much better now to? I don’t know.

I had probably one of the first 4-20 atacr. Maybe I’m just not picky enough but when I got it I was hoping to see an upgrade in the glass.

Comparing it to whatever atacr models I had at the time struck me as just another atacr. I sold it to get the ZCO which felt like a noticeable upgrade in comparison
Click to expand...



I highly doubt that because when you have military contracts, you have to make it in the specifications that is requested.
 
#61
Soon we will need to say what year our scope is... so ridiculous. Makes it easy to hide the ball for the marketeerz though :ROFLMAO:

NF does not hold a candle to ZCO. I don't care what vintage it is. You may be fine with a NF and don't need a ZCO, but they are not close - Ferrari vs Vette. I like the Vette argument for my own shooting, but I'm fair weather hobby only.
 
#62
Chickentoast said:
Soon we will need to say what year our scope is... so ridiculous. Makes it easy to hide the ball for the marketeerz though :ROFLMAO:

NF does not hold a candle to ZCO. I don't care what vintage it is. You may be fine with a NF and don't need a ZCO, but they are not close - Ferrari vs Vette. I like the Vette argument for my own shooting, but I'm fair weather hobby only.
Click to expand...


Rolling changes during production has happened through products forever, look at the automotive industry or iPhones for example. Just some notable and obvious areas on the ZCO is the finish and 10MIL turrets for example. I’d rather a manufacturer make improvements when they feel the need to instead of sitting on the same exact design for a decade or longer.

Richard
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirgunnerPCP
#64
CSTactical said:
Rolling changes during production has happened through products forever, look at the automotive industry or iPhones for example. Just some notable and obvious areas on the ZCO is the finish and 10MIL turrets for example. I’d rather a manufacturer make improvements when they feel the need to instead of sitting on the same exact design for a decade or longer.

Richard
Click to expand...

Agree, but they should note it as a v 1.1 or some other way, rather than stealth. Stealth leans on brand equity negatively on the consumer side and works in the dealer's favor - ie can't be quantified by consumer, just trust us and buy a new widget if your current widget disappoints in any way.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: jbuck88, CSTactical and Secant
#65
Chickentoast said:
Agree, but they should note it as a v 1.1 or some other way, rather than stealth. Stealth leans on brand equity negatively on the consumer side and works in the dealer's favor - ie can't be quantified by consumer, just trust us and buy a new widget if your current widget disappoints in any way.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every manufacturer does it, are we seriously going to deter innovation when consumers win in the end? That's ludicrous! Some price increases over time allow them to make these changes for better material, coatings, QC, more machines, more employees etc...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :unsure:



STOP INNOVATING EVERYONE!!!!
 
#67
BurtG said:
Everyone loves their zco 420

Perfect larger gas gun optic. 2.5-20nf works for a more compact solution
Click to expand...
I'm going to sort of disagree with "everyone". Mind you, I'm comparing ZCO to ZCO and not knocking them at all. Love 'em. BUT, if I had it to do over I would not have bought the 420, but rather another 527. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze between the two. For a tad shorter and lighter you are giving up too much for $400. The 527 is well worth another $400 if you're already spending around $4K. I wish CS tactical had a "compare" feature like Euro Optic, but shooting both scopes I feel like the 527 spoils you so bad I find the 420 wanting. Not talking specs, just my opinion when shooting comps.

Mine is on my NRL22 stick, and I would have really liked to have the extra power of the 527, but that said I bought used off here, and got a great deal. I do love it like "everyone", but I don't love it as much at the 527.
 
#68
Fig said:
I'm going to sort of disagree with "everyone". Mind you, I'm comparing ZCO to ZCO and not knocking them at all. Love 'em. BUT, if I had it to do over I would not have bought the 420, but rather another 527. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze between the two. For a tad shorter and lighter you are giving up too much for $400. The 527 is well worth another $400 if you're already spending around $4K. I wish CS tactical had a "compare" feature like Euro Optic, but shooting both scopes I feel like the 527 spoils you so bad I find the 420 wanting. Not talking specs, just my opinion when shooting comps.

Mine is on my NRL22 stick, and I would have really liked to have the extra power of the 527, but that said I bought used off here, and got a great deal. I do love it like "everyone", but I don't love it as much at the 527.
Click to expand...


We are making big changes to our website, I'm going to add that to our list of potential changes. Thank you for the suggestion!
(Euro's budget is probably 20 times ours )
-Richard

I'm going to address the Pro's of the ZC420 Vs. the ZC527 in non competition settings in a bit.
 
#69
CSTactical said:
Pretty much every manufacturer does it, are we seriously going to deter innovation when consumers win in the end? That's ludicrous! Some price increases over time allow them to make these changes for better material, coatings, QC, more machines, more employees etc...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :unsure:



STOP INNOVATING EVERYONE!!!!
Click to expand...
You don't understand my point, sorry.
 
#70
Chickentoast said:
You don't understand my point, sorry.
Click to expand...


There's no boogeyman, and if you think I'm here to just be a "Salesman" then you have not paid attention.
We are part of the 'hide community and Mike has been part of this community about 20 years. I post way more information on what's going on inside the industry that most people are not aware of. But only to a certain extent so I don't have lawyers involved. Take it or leave it, I have thousands of customers/friends/associates/partners here that like how honest and up front we are. And I'm free to have conversations whether it is live streamed, on a podcast or on the phone.

Richard Alves
cstactical.com
916-628-3490
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrindecisive
#71
CSTactical said:
We are making big changes to our website, I'm going to add that to our list of potential changes. Thank you for the suggestion!
(Euro's budget is probably 20 times ours )
-Richard

I'm going to address the Pro's of the ZC420 Vs. the ZC527 in non competition settings in a bit.
Click to expand...


This specific post is about Gas Guns which may or may not be used for or with:

Clip Ons/ NV/ Thermal where the length of the optic matters
General Purpose, a do all like the modern day 3-15
a GOV role

Now that the 2-10 is out, it will steal some of the sales from the ZC420.

Options are good.

IMG_3660.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3090.JPG
    IMG_3090.JPG
    235.1 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roostercogburn98 and FNG1001
#73
CSTactical said:
There's no boogeyman, and if you think I'm here to just be a "Salesman" then you have not paid attention.
We are part of the 'hide community and Mike has been part of this community about 20 years. I post way more information on what's going on inside the industry that most people are not aware of. But only to a certain extent so I don't have lawyers involved. Take it or leave it, I have thousands of customers/friends/associates/partners here that like how honest and up front we are. And I'm free to have conversations whether it is live streamed, on a podcast or on the phone.

Richard Alves
cstactical.com
916-628-3490
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I don't care about any of that nor did I write about / question / threaten any of that. You either didn't understand my point or are being obtuse on purpose - lame either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patrick1956
#74
Chickentoast said:
What are you talking about? I don't care about any of that nor did I write about / question / threaten any of that. You either didn't understand my point or are being obtuse on purpose - lame either way.
Click to expand...

I guess it went over my head, sorry...

And this is exactly why conversations are better verbally instead of over texts.

Please explain
 
#75
Chickentoast said:
What are you talking about? I don't care about any of that nor did I write about / question / threaten any of that. You either didn't understand my point or are being obtuse on purpose - lame either way.
Click to expand...


You sound like an educated fellow, I did not have a great education and barely graduated due to growing up in a rough area centered around gangs and drug culture. I've learned from experience in my 51 years here, so feel free to explain it to me like I'm slow as you called me. My name is Richard by the way, what is yours?

-Richard
 
#76
CSTactical said:
I guess it went over my head, sorry...

And this is exactly why conversations are better verbally instead of over texts.

Please explain
Click to expand...
OK, my suggestion was simply that a version number with list of changes vs last version be made public such that we can understand what we have / don't have, because there have been arguments of late re: stealth versions from many different manufacturers, ie "yours sucks because you have the old one".

Perfect example is the NX8, which I hate because I had a 4-32 years ago and it was crap for the 2K price point. Apparently, the NX8 got much better along the way, but NF never called it a gen2. So, I continue to hate the NX8, when it might now be a decent value.

If there is no standard / list of differences between v.1 and v.2, v99, then it is impossible to quantify what we have, and impossible to compare each other's experiences.

Does it matter for ZCO, probably not as much, because it's a Ferrari, but this could simply be yet another area where they lead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carbonbased and stanley_white
#77
Chickentoast said:
OK, my suggestion was simply that a version number with list of changes vs last version be made public such that we can understand what we have / don't have, because there have been arguments of late re: stealth versions from many different manufacturers, ie "yours sucks because you have the old one".

Perfect example is the NX8, which I hate because I had a 4-32 years ago and it was crap for the 2K price point. Apparently, the NX8 got much better along the way, but NF never called it a gen2. So, I continue to hate the NX8, when it might now be a decent value.

If there is no standard / list of differences between v.1 and v.2, v99, then it is impossible to quantify what we have, and impossible to compare each other's experiences.

Does it matter for ZCO, probably not as much, because it's a Ferrari, but this could simply be yet another area where they lead.
Click to expand...
I think the same often.

There are folks here who have RSSD (Rifle Scope Stress Disorder) because they bought a bad Product X, from Company Y, Z Years Ago.

RSSD causes people to state their hate, however dated, sans a date of information - which is misleading to the reader, even if not intentional.

As a USO owner I see this all the time.

“Date of Actual Experience” should be an additional field on every post.

-Stan
 
#78
Chickentoast said:
Perfect example is the NX8, which I hate because I had a 4-32 years ago and it was crap for the 2K price point. Apparently, the NX8 got much better along the way, but NF never called it a gen2. So, I continue to hate the NX8, when it might now be a decent value.
Click to expand...
This.

I have a recent NX8 and it’s about as sharp as my recent S&B 5-25 (and waaay better in the flare dept), and sharper/less CA than my two Razor G2’s.

I have never looked through an old 4-32, but man, my copy is awesome.
 
#79
Chickentoast said:
OK, my suggestion was simply that a version number with list of changes vs last version be made public such that we can understand what we have / don't have, because there have been arguments of late re: stealth versions from many different manufacturers, ie "yours sucks because you have the old one".

Perfect example is the NX8, which I hate because I had a 4-32 years ago and it was crap for the 2K price point. Apparently, the NX8 got much better along the way, but NF never called it a gen2. So, I continue to hate the NX8, when it might now be a decent value.

If there is no standard / list of differences between v.1 and v.2, v99, then it is impossible to quantify what we have, and impossible to compare each other's experiences.

Does it matter for ZCO, probably not as much, because it's a Ferrari, but this could simply be yet another area where they lead.
Click to expand...
If it really bothers you that much then buy new. The changes are infinitesimally small. Most could hardly notice them IMO.

It would be retarded for them to start to delineate their product line. Devalue their brand and older models when frankly, they are still the best optics on the planet. The demand for them is insane and if you don't believe me, try to find a new on in stock anywhere.

You know who tried that shit and ran their company presence in the US into the ground? Minox.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: AirgunnerPCP and CSTactical
#80
Fig said:
I'm going to sort of disagree with "everyone". Mind you, I'm comparing ZCO to ZCO and not knocking them at all. Love 'em. BUT, if I had it to do over I would not have bought the 420, but rather another 527. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze between the two. For a tad shorter and lighter you are giving up too much for $400. The 527 is well worth another $400 if you're already spending around $4K. I wish CS tactical had a "compare" feature like Euro Optic, but shooting both scopes I feel like the 527 spoils you so bad I find the 420 wanting. Not talking specs, just my opinion when shooting comps.

Mine is on my NRL22 stick, and I would have really liked to have the extra power of the 527, but that said I bought used off here, and got a great deal. I do love it like "everyone", but I don't love it as much at the 527.
Click to expand...
IMO the eyebox on the 420 is better. The reticle thickness also seems more optimized for its magnification range, but that just may be my eyes. It is the perfect hunting/gas gun optic. And I would run it in PRS if i didn't already have a 527 and a 840 on order.

For positional shooting with a gas gun, where cheek weld options are less than perfect, I think it really shines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dendro and CSTactical
#81
Chickentoast said:
OK, my suggestion was simply that a version number with list of changes vs last version be made public such that we can understand what we have / don't have, because there have been arguments of late re: stealth versions from many different manufacturers, ie "yours sucks because you have the old one".

Perfect example is the NX8, which I hate because I had a 4-32 years ago and it was crap for the 2K price point. Apparently, the NX8 got much better along the way, but NF never called it a gen2. So, I continue to hate the NX8, when it might now be a decent value.

If there is no standard / list of differences between v.1 and v.2, v99, then it is impossible to quantify what we have, and impossible to compare each other's experiences.

Does it matter for ZCO, probably not as much, because it's a Ferrari, but this could simply be yet another area where they lead.
Click to expand...


It's nice in theory, but it would be a headache for the majority of people. Using ZCO as an example, the NLE upgrade was something that we demanded and Jeff alone came up with a solution on the 15MIL turrets. The 10MIL turrets were heavily announced and the new finish happened a year or so ago but did not track it. Anything else was not disclosed to us, but customers who have had a dozen or so ZCO's from the time the first batch was released in 01/2019 to the past year or so can tell there's a difference optically. These are people I trust and even A419's test indicated that the ZC840 was the strongest overall optically.
 
#90
hafejd30 said:
This is legitimately the first post I’ve seen putting the NF above the ZCO. Interesting

I haven’t looked through the ZCO but didn’t think my 4-20 was enough of a step above my 4-16 to justify giving up the low profile turret and compact design of the 4-16. I also didn’t like the tunneling to 5.5 on the 4-20 given the use of the optic.

I haven’t owned a NF I thought was better than my 735 NF and my ZCO 527 is slightly better than that
Click to expand...
It's very possible that either the conditions or the examples I had skewed the results.

I have noticed that there is noticeable sample variation in ATACRs. Is it possible I have an exceptional 4-20 ATACR and the ZCO was a dud?

@CSTactical I am aware that the internet loves the 4-20, but that's not what I saw. Can you pull both out and look through them for me? I don't currently own both. Both myself and a friend had the same conclusion when comparing the two 4-20's. FOV and eyebox were the most noticeable differences with the ATACR winning in both of those categories.
Richard, I did adjust the diopter on both, so I don't think that should have been a factor.

Most of the reviews compare the ZCO to other ultra-shorts. I find all of the ultra-short scopes to be lacking. With the ATACR being a non-ultrashort maybe that's why it fares well?
 
#91
physhphude said:
It's very possible that either the conditions or the examples I had skewed the results.

I have noticed that there is noticeable sample variation in ATACRs. Is it possible I have an exceptional 4-20 ATACR and the ZCO was a dud?

@CSTactical I am aware that the internet loves the 4-20, but that's not what I saw. Can you pull both out and look through them for me? I don't currently own both. Both myself and a friend had the same conclusion when comparing the two 4-20's. FOV and eyebox were the most noticeable differences with the ATACR winning in both of those categories.
Richard, I did adjust the diopter on both, so I don't think that should have been a factor.

Most of the reviews compare the ZCO to other ultra-shorts. I find all of the ultra-short scopes to be lacking. With the ATACR being a non-ultrashort maybe that's why it fares well?
Click to expand...


I will tell you this, I've seen people try to take scopes apart, use abrasives on lenses and try to trade it in with us without full disclosure as we would never take such a scope in. Due to Shenaniguns like this, we don't take trade-ins anymore.

You looked through a sample of one that was obviously an anomaly, I looked through many ZCO samples I posted plenty of positive examples and have sold thousands.

No the 4-16 or 4-20 ATACR does not outperform the ZC420 optically if tested side by side and both are in similar conditions. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise as I'm not there looking through the scopes you have in front of you.

Tricks like maxing out the elevation and windage and having someone look through that sample while the next sample is close to center can have an impact.

Myself and others are just posting our experience and facts in many areas as there's been similar tests over the years. If you feel the ATACR performs better for you then rock on since the ATACR is still a great (But dated) scope.
 
#92
Interesting read. Have owned TT, SB, ZCO, NF, Vortex, Zeiss, Swaro…etc
I still own most of them, But I hunt hard in crazy weather, stumble - drop rifles - even fallen off cliffs.

I agree that TT/ZCO/SB have better glass than most of my ATACR scopes but the NF is the only scope that has never failed me.

Range and static shooting not my game

Ever

Hunter/Shooter/Old man

Killer of over 500 big game animals…mostly NF/Blaser R8 300win/300N


5053B826-9EF3-4226-96EB-3CDFECE94CA8.jpeg
 
#93
physhphude said:
It's very possible that either the conditions or the examples I had skewed the results.

I have noticed that there is noticeable sample variation in ATACRs. Is it possible I have an exceptional 4-20 ATACR and the ZCO was a dud?

@CSTactical I am aware that the internet loves the 4-20, but that's not what I saw. Can you pull both out and look through them for me? I don't currently own both. Both myself and a friend had the same conclusion when comparing the two 4-20's. FOV and eyebox were the most noticeable differences with the ATACR winning in both of those categories.
Richard, I did adjust the diopter on both, so I don't think that should have been a factor.

Most of the reviews compare the ZCO to other ultra-shorts. I find all of the ultra-short scopes to be lacking. With the ATACR being a non-ultrashort maybe that's why it fares well?
Click to expand...

Remember, you don’t have to justify your opinion on scopes you’ve owned, just because you get bombarded with posts on a forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: physhphude and Fret
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DeathBeforeDismount
SOLD BNIB KAC SR-15 Lower PN 25780
Replies
3
Views
481
clcustom1911
clcustom1911
BigScoot45
SOLD ZCO 420 MPCT3
Replies
3
Views
764
BigScoot45
BigScoot45
utah_longrange
Rifle Scopes ZCO vs TT regarding reliability and known issues (if any)
Replies
34
Views
2K
wooferocau
wooferocau
D
Rifle Scopes optic choice for 20" hbar gas gun
Replies
15
Views
763
owtlaw
O
hafejd30
ZCO527 vs NF ATACR 7-35 vs Arken EP5- (Last Light Comparison)
Replies
29
Views
5K
tna9001
T
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts