6-36 is the new 5-27

[Sebrock]

Pass it on. New announcements by both Vortex and ZCO. I have both in 5x27. Does that mean they don’t work anyomore?

Seriously though, what is the compromise when increasing magnification - lesser edge to edge quality or less elevation (if tube remains the same)? 36 does sound awfully nice - at worse it makes the eye box at 27 much better, no?

 

[deepsix++]

personally for PRS use I would rather have something like a 8-40x60 optic who really goes below 8 power any who . use 10-15 on a stage 20- 35 on long range targets and 40 on zeroing

 

[Sebrock]

personally for PRS use I would rather have something like a 8-40x60 optic who really goes below 8 power any who . use 10-15 on a stage 20- 35 on long range targets and 40 on zeroing

I think they wanted something that could still have a wide field of view for other applications. But I’m with you 8-40 would be awesome (maybe Gen IV for vortex, lol). My 4.5-27 is on my vudoo so that’s plenty of range and do appreciate the lower magnification but would love to reach out further on my PRS/Long range target gun - have the ZCO on that and their new 8-40 offering sounds great - will wait for that variant to be released and well reviewed (but can’t imagine it being anything but stellar but who knows it’s a big change from the current optical range).

 

[blksno]

I've always been of the school that FOR ME, I very very rarely go below 10x. Even when hunting predators where they can pop out at any time, at any range...7-8x is low enough.
I grabbed a 5-42 HighMaster last year that might be replacing my TT on my match rifle. Will have to test it at a few matches and see if i'm missing anything...but I agree. My sweet spot is 18-25 for most actual shooting...but I love LR spotting and zeroing at 35+
The difference between 5-7-8 on the low end is so inconsequential when the top end varies from 25-36-42 is BIG.

 

[Dobermann]

Pass it on. New announcements by both Vortex and ZCO. I have both in 5x27.

I think Nightforce and Bushnell might have done it first.

Just sayin'.

 

[MarkyMark007]

in the end, ppl will realize that for PRS/NRL they dont need below 6× power, and they dont need bigger than 30× power.

and again there will be popular riflescopes with 5× or maybe even 4× ZOOM ratio, which will be superior to 6, 7, 8× ZOOM ratio because of pure phisics.
and than will ppl realize that we already have this kind of riflescopes in 5-25x56 or 6-24x56... maybe new riflescopes will come in 6-30, because we already have 7-35...

 

[308pirate]

in the end, ppl will realize that for PRS/NRL they dont need below 6× power, and they dont need bigger than 30× power.

and again there will be popular riflescopes with 5× or maybe even 4× ZOOM ratio, which will be superior to 6, 7, 8× ZOOM ratio because of pure phisics.
and than will ppl realize that we already have this kind of riflescopes in 5-25x56 or 6-24x56... maybe new riflescopes will come in 6-30, because we already have 7-35...

You should start a new scope manufacturing company

In Austria

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

You should start a new scope manufacturing company

In Austria

I heard there’s plenty of talent in Romania…

 

[Rob01]

Pass it on. New announcements by both Vortex and ZCO. I have both in 5x27. Does that mean they don’t work anyomore?

Seriously though, what is the compromise when increasing magnification - lesser edge to edge quality or less elevation (if tube remains the same)? 36 does sound awfully nice - at worse it makes the eye box at 27 much better, no?

LOL They still work fine. Relax tiny dancer your scopes still work. LOL

No compromise actually if designed well like the new scopes are. Actually more elevation in the Vortex at 36 mils and you also get down to 10 yards for parallax also. All comes down to the design as they are new and not just trying to stuff more into the same package size.

 

[Sebrock]

LOL They still work fine. Relax tiny dancer your scopes still work. LOL

No compromise actually if designed well like the new scopes are. Actually more elevation in the Vortex at 36 mils and you also get down to 10 yards for parallax also. All comes down to the design as they are new and not just trying to stuff more into the same package size.

 

[steve123]

IMHO, by 38x riflescopes start to dim out. One reason why I hardly go above 35x with my March HM 5-42x56. But being so compact this scope has compromises in it. That is March's MO - short, lightweight, and with close focus parallax but.... Don't get me wrong because I like this scope a lot. Mine is mounted on a expensive air rifle BTW so I need 10Y focus sometimes.

For long range I guess I'd rather see normal length scopes, with lower mag ratios, and 25Y min focus, like a 10-40 or something similar.

As much as I love 10Y close focus for much of my shooting I want the least amount of compromises for specifically shooting long range.
The DOF the TT's have and the Swaro X5's have are just amazing, so is the IQ. I could be wrong but I assume it at least partially correlates with the the 50Y plus minimum focus while equally admiting these have wonderful glass???

 

[Sebrock]

IMHO, by 38x riflescopes start to dim out. One reason why I hardly go above 35x with my March HM 5-42x56. But being so compact this scope has compromises in it. That is March's MO - short, lightweight, and with close focus parallax but.... Don't get me wrong because I like this scope a lot. Mine is mounted on a expensive air rifle BTW so I need 10Y focus sometimes.

For long range I guess I'd rather see normal length scopes, with lower mag ratios, and 25Y min focus, like a 10-40 or something similar.

As much as I love 10Y close focus for much of my shooting I want the least amount of compromises for specifically shooting long range.
The DOF the TT's have and the Swaro X5's have are just amazing, so is the IQ. I could be wrong but I assume it at least partially correlates with the the 50Y plus minimum focus while equally admiting these have wonderful glass???

Just coming from the camera world, I always find (in zooms which is basically what we are talking about), everything is a compromise - the wider the DOF is related to the aperture which is also related to the front element (if I remember correctly). There is a huge difference between a 2.8 zoom and a 4.0 zoom with the 4.0 being smaller and lighter. I have to assume that these scopes are the same. For the 8-40 ZCO I think the compromise was the elevation travel and longer minimum parallax (compared to the vortex). For the Vortex, I think they had room to improve the optical quality regardless (given its an old model) and were probably able to make it better than the older 4.5-27 (the price is also a few hundred dollars more). My .02 but this is all conjecture.

 

[MarkyMark007]

...5-42x56. But being so compact this scope has compromises in it...

that's the case.
everything has compromises (even 'Zero' compromise optic), but when it comes to realy big zoom ratios, and compactness (maybe even close paralax setting), things become maybe even unusable...

 

[ma smith]

Just coming from the camera world, I always find (in zooms which is basically what we are talking about), everything is a compromise - the wider the DOF is related to the aperture which is also related to the front element (if I remember correctly). There is a huge difference between a 2.8 zoom and a 4.0 zoom with the 4.0 being smaller and lighter. I have to assume that these scopes are the same. For the 8-40 ZCO I think the compromise was the elevation travel and longer minimum parallax (compared to the vortex). For the Vortex, I think they had room to improve the optical quality regardless (given its an old model) and were probably able to make it better than the older 4.5-27 (the price is also a few hundred dollars more).

I think this is all idle speculation, and quite counter productive

My .02 but this is all conjecture.

Indeed...

 

[GrumpyOleFart]

It's all good news for the riflemen.
Better gear and more options.
Going to be a great year.

 

[erwos]

More options don't hurt, but I gotta say that on my 5-30x, it's pretty rare for me to go all the way to 30x unless I'm past 1000yds - and even then, it's not an "all the time" proposition. I guess I'm saying that I could see some use cases where saving the money would probably make sense, just like not all the 3gun guys jumped straight to the 1-10.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

in the end, ppl will realize that for PRS/NRL they dont need below 6× power, and they dont need bigger than 30× power.

and again there will be popular riflescopes with 5× or maybe even 4× ZOOM ratio, which will be superior to 6, 7, 8× ZOOM ratio because of pure phisics.
and than will ppl realize that we already have this kind of riflescopes in 5-25x56 or 6-24x56... maybe new riflescopes will come in 6-30, because we already have 7-35...

The gift that keeps on giving…..