I mean if you like the reticles and zcos turrets I guess that is up to you.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class Long Range Scope Review - TT, ZCO, Schmidt, March, Vortex
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
I mean if you like the reticles and zcos turrets I guess that is up to you.
Sorry, should have been more clear. The IQ of the two ZCOs compared to the PMII. The second part of the statement was assuming that TT is slightly better than ZCO IQ wise.
Thank you, now I understand. Yes, the PMII 5-25 is still impressive after all these years. We've all heard the term "splitting hairs" and in many ways that is exactly what we are doing when attempting to put a value on the quality of glass at this level, so for many it comes down to turrets and reticle which Husky mentions above.
Is the TT worth more than ZCO or S&B? Well, that is really what each person has to decide. Throw in the Minox ZP5 which shares similar optical lineage as TT but at less than half the price (used) and it makes it even more difficult.
They won't and neither will zco I have asked many a time
kinda strange tbh, they picked a reticle from an obscure company (relative to FinnAccuracy) but not the MSR2.
Not sure how I never saw this before now, but great write up Bill! If the TT was the same price as the ZCO I'd give one a try but I just can't believe it worth another grand because the ZCOs are so damn good. Completely agree with your comments on the ZCO, Minox and Burris scopes which I either currently own or have owned and used extensively. I just picked up a ZCO 4-20 not long ago from Jake. I might have given the March shorty a try had I seen this sooner, but I have no complaints with Z 4-20. I'm sure this review was a ton of work, so thank you very much!
Meh im very happy with my DTII+ schmidt and a fan of H2CMR and reticle swap options. Plus the aesthetics just flow better on an Xray 66.
If I do get a TT, it’ll be the coyote TT735P to mount on an MRAD.
Appreciate that teaspoon (I make up names from usernames and saw tsp...
). It was a ton of work and I have a lot going on lately still have another big one to do with the Schmidt 3-27, NF NX8 2.5-20x50 and March 3-24x52, basically an extreme magnification zoom review that has eluded me for too long now, I have all the numbers just need to put everything into words.
I’ve been trying to square TT reviews with this review: https://www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com/pages/optics-comparison
I think that dude has a decent reputation, but I don’t know for sure.
And in the Hide TV episode The Mark and Frank Show, at the 1:17:50 mark Frank states that one should only spend $2k-3K on a scope. And a little later on in that video he says a TT is “…a $2800 scope in a $4250 package.” He does say they’re a great scope.
ZCO I get, sorta, pretty much. But TT? I dunno man, I dunno.
I think that dude has a decent reputation, but I don’t know for sure.
And in the Hide TV episode The Mark and Frank Show, at the 1:17:50 mark Frank states that one should only spend $2k-3K on a scope. And a little later on in that video he says a TT is “…a $2800 scope in a $4250 package.” He does say they’re a great scope.
ZCO I get, sorta, pretty much. But TT? I dunno man, I dunno.
Last edited:
I really hope Schmidt offers some more reticle options in the 6-36 PMII.
P5FL and GRI2D seems pretty sparse. Where's the MSR2, LRR-Mil etc etc.
P5FL and GRI2D seems pretty sparse. Where's the MSR2, LRR-Mil etc etc.
i dont know man...I think the Mk5HD 5-25 is a good optic, but I dont think its better or even in the same universe as Schmidt/ZCO/Tangent. That's absurd.
I own a MarkV as well. Your assessment agrees with my opinion. It’s a fine scope for the money, but not in the same league with the ZCO
Are you guys only looking at the final chart, the “Cost $ per Clarity Point” chart?
If so, look at the direct sunlight, backlit, and combined results.
The direct sunlight test results seems pretty spot on to many people’s feelings (I’m on crack). The backlit test is very useful. And the ZCO kicks everyone’s ass in performance, at least according to that fellow.
If so, look at the direct sunlight, backlit, and combined results.
Last edited:
im looking at the combined. There aint no way the MK5HD is better than TT/S&B. Same with the ATACR.
Yeah, I was just referencing the ZCO. I’ve read lots and lots of scope reviews throughout the years, and lots of people say the same things.
But like I said, I read that review I posted and then I listened to Frank. I own two Razor Gen II 4.5-27’s and have owned a Mark 5 5-25 (disliked it).
Slowly I am starting to think that sample variation, the quality and health of the reviewer’s eyes, and that some people may be subconsciously following the herd has more to do with rankings than I first was led to believe.
A lot like audio speaker reviews (but not as bad as that).
I really do think this is the case with certain companies. I like ZCO but i just can't get over those turrets. I had the chance to use one and those were a deal breaker.
Not to mention I've heard there's been some consistency issues with mfg recently.
I like my PMII that i got for a steal new and have no plans of changing it out. I can see the 1600-1 mile plates quite clearly and make out individual grasses.
That’s because Frank knows how the Premier sausage got made.
Nice review!
now you just have to sell me one of your test scopes really cheap….
now you just have to sell me one of your test scopes really cheap….
Last edited:
What I like about Schmidt is that their facility for maintenance is right across the river in Virginia from me.
I’ve had every one of my scopes changed out to be the same reticle… and I can literally drive over there and pick him up and drop them off.
So aside from the fact they just work, that’s a really big plus for me.
Last edited:
This is true. I will say though S&B has had their duds. Their dual cc short dot being one of them.
especially at that new price of 6K LMFAO
I think Frank’s point is that beyond $3k you’re paying for name/features, not mechanics/optical quality. It’s like dropping the cash on a Ferrari 458/488 (a dream car of mine)… is it sweet? Hell yeah. Is it top tier performance? Fucking-A right! Will it get crushed at the track by a Corvette C8 that costs less than 25% as much? Yup, sure will. Hell, you have to work damn hard to best a Nissan GTR or a Porsche 911 GT in terms of on track performance. The other part is, of course, that you can spend Porsche 911GT2/3 or Nissan GTR money and get significantly less car… just like you can buy a $2500-3000 scope and get $1000-1500 scope performance.
This is what we call the "point of diminishing returns", yes, an argument can be made for the "quality" above $3k but it begins to get less and and less and less the more you pay so the question becomes "is it really worth it, for me?" and for some the TT is "worth it" to have the best glass and the best turret feel and toolless design in the business. For others it may be a Schmidt Ultra Short with DT II+ turrets because they need a shorter scope and love the new MTC (with no overtravel) and for others it may be ZCO because of the superb ergonomics and yet for others it might be a March 4.5-28 with their extreme FOV, short body and new Shuriken lock turrets. We all choose things for different reasons to fit a goal we have in mind, sometimes the equipment fulfills those goals and other times we feel it comes up short and other times our equipment is just fine but our American brains are conditioned from birth to always want the next new thing.
This TBH. I dont think you can go wrong with the top 3-5.
What Carbonbased said about the health of an individuals eyes struck a nerve.
I had progressive problems setting up the diopters on my optics, having to make an increasing effort to focus images, and making out detail through my optics, which I "chalked off" to "old eyes" and the cataracts which I knew were getting worse until I got the results of my tests back from the Stein Inst.
It wasn't the cataracts that were gonna do me in, but the glaucoma causing irreversible nerve damage if not addressed RIGHT NOW. There is no cure, the best U can get against glaucoma is to put it "on hold" re future nerve damage, so as a cautionary tale I'd suggest anybody whose getting older to get a full exam even if things seem ok.
None of the meds I used for the glaucoma worked, they then resorted to "stints" like little drain valves which they installed in the side of my eyeballs to relieve the pressure, which got that pressure back to normal which has put the glaucoma to "sleep".
The shock came rt after the implant surgery on my rt eye when I went about a month B4 getting the left eye done and the vision out of my left eye which didn't seem all that bad even though it wasn't what it used to be, now looked like ABSOLUTE SHIT, when compared to what I could see out of my rt eye.
My brain had found a way to adjust/keep adjusting to eyesight that was getting worse and I understood what the surgeon meant when he said everybody is nervous before doing the 1st eye then when they see how clear that is, they get in a hurry to do the other eye.
Even if a full evaluation comes back that your eyes are in great shape, they still might detect the early stages of a condition that's going do U in later if not treated.
I had progressive problems setting up the diopters on my optics, having to make an increasing effort to focus images, and making out detail through my optics, which I "chalked off" to "old eyes" and the cataracts which I knew were getting worse until I got the results of my tests back from the Stein Inst.
It wasn't the cataracts that were gonna do me in, but the glaucoma causing irreversible nerve damage if not addressed RIGHT NOW. There is no cure, the best U can get against glaucoma is to put it "on hold" re future nerve damage, so as a cautionary tale I'd suggest anybody whose getting older to get a full exam even if things seem ok.
None of the meds I used for the glaucoma worked, they then resorted to "stints" like little drain valves which they installed in the side of my eyeballs to relieve the pressure, which got that pressure back to normal which has put the glaucoma to "sleep".
The shock came rt after the implant surgery on my rt eye when I went about a month B4 getting the left eye done and the vision out of my left eye which didn't seem all that bad even though it wasn't what it used to be, now looked like ABSOLUTE SHIT, when compared to what I could see out of my rt eye.
My brain had found a way to adjust/keep adjusting to eyesight that was getting worse and I understood what the surgeon meant when he said everybody is nervous before doing the 1st eye then when they see how clear that is, they get in a hurry to do the other eye.
Even if a full evaluation comes back that your eyes are in great shape, they still might detect the early stages of a condition that's going do U in later if not treated.
Last edited:
Awesome review and information and I looking forward to see something on the new TT735P scope sometime in the future.
I have so far read this review four or five times. F7
Little-experienced me is not a prima facie fan of the 36mm tube. Maybe that will change. ZCO says it allows for increased lenses, optical performance, etc. I cannot assess that claim from my desk.
For one, I don't need the distance. Second, if the tube does not in fact deliver on increased optical performance at erector elevation extremes (if I am reading this rightly), it's a burden to me. But, and I mean this honestly, who am I with so little under my belt. F7
Last edited:
It does, but so do the truly alpha level optics with 34mm tubes.
Yeah, I’ve got 1 3-20 US, 1 5-20 US, 3 5-25 PMIIs (each a different version) all with T3 reticles. I didn’t pay list price for any of them, so at the end of the day they were all cost-effective and the glass is pretty good.
I played around with the EO Tech Vudus, various Leupolds, an Arken (halfway decent glass with horrible coatings), Vortex (higher end units are better, lower room ones are just OK), Trijicon (meh), Kahles, Hensoldt, nightforces, premier reticles, etc.
The less expensive scopes definitely suffer from a combination of craptastic glass and poor features.
The high-end scopes all had a fantastic glass, and excellent coatings on the glass. With the primary difference being the turrets and overall functionality of the scopes. For example, the Kahles add fantastic glass, but the turret set up left a lot to be desired from functionality standpoint. The Hensoldt was fantastic for a glass perspective, but again, the design of the scope, which was made for a sniper rifle in the German army, did not lend itself to ease of use. And the list goes on….
Haven’t touched any of the Leupold scopes in years, but I always loved that you could call Leupold and ask them to make you BDC turrets for whatever specific round you were shooting.
I found it was just easier to standardize on Schmidt, and make sure every scope had the same reticle and it. Plus the service center is across the river in Virginia if I ever have any issues.
I haven’t had any problems hitting targets out to 1500 yards so the Schmidts are pretty darn good. I will say that the glass in the 5–20 doesn’t seem to be quite as nice as all the others, for whatever reason. However, it still blows away most other scopes.
(For example the EO Tech Vudu is a similar sized scope to the Schmidt 5–20 ultra short, but the amount of chromic aberration in the glass in the vudu is awful… still at works pretty well on my 22LR; I would be inclined to use it on anything that I’m not shooting further out than about 500 yards… and if that’s your engagement range, it ends up being a quarter the price of the ultra short… possibly not even that expensive.)
Copy. And I meant to say that ZCO says their 36mm tubes allow for larger lenses, not “increased” lenses, which is ambiguous. Thanks
Like TheOE800 mentions, yes, the ZCO does do well at elevation extremes, but in comparing to TT, Schmidt and even the new Vortex Gen III (which offers the closest to travel as the ZCO) I could not find a situation where the ZCO outperformed the other scopes when set to the extreme travel, at least not enough that would make me not consider the other scopes even if I knew I'd be at or near the travel limit of the turret. The Vortex held its own in so many ways to the ZCO, other than the "color" it certainly seems to be the scope that punches way above its price with regard to optical/mechanical performance - is the ZCO better, I believe so, but is it almost $2000 better... well, only the user can truly ascertain that. If after evaluating everything you end up choosing a ZCO I would say "fantastic choice" and if you end up choosing the Vortex I'd also say "fantastic choice", that's how good all these scopes are - choosing one over the other usually has to do with reticle or some other feature which you think will better benefit your style of shooting.
Have you gotten hands on the new T6 Steiners? They are supposedly very good glass.
Thanks for the data--helpful material as usual. Regarding reticles, I understand that one or the other can be a deal breaker, or a deal maker. In my brief exposure (really, only about a year of serious investigation), there are more than one or two reticles I like or can easily live with (ZCO has a couple, as do others), but some that I would struggle to do so. I know that many experienced people--way out of my league--for example, use and probably love the Tremor3 and Tremor5, if I have their names correctly. But this is one type of reticle that is too, too busy for me. To each his own. F7
Edit: There's one more thing: I think in your review that included the Razor Gen III (or another one), you said that the Razor's three pounds was too much for you. At present, I feel the same. I went a similar way that you described in this review, likely, or another one, in that I wanted a scope that weighed about 25 ounces or less (you said about 30, I believe), but then I went to about 30 ounces, while you went to about 35. Now I am up to about 35 ounces myself and would consider the ZCO 4-20x50. Our common reason was that weight preference became too delimiting. Nothing brilliant is being said here, I know.
Last edited:
Only the Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56, it is an excellent scope that shows great promise, I have not yet done a full review but will later this year. Based on my brief experience (about two weeks) with the scope, I will be buying one for my next crossover rifle (6.5 PRC) that will be used for hunting and long range steel. If you need lowlight glass and don't want a 5-25ish scope, I think the 3-18x56 is the scope to beat, not just because it's the only game in town for mid range and 56mm objective but because the glass and overall ergonomics is really impressive.
Reticle preference is just that - preference. You like vanilla and I like chocolate, there is not right or wrong answer here it is purely what works best for you. A friend of mine bought a Schmidt US 5-20 with P4FL reticle mostly because it was much cheaper than the "newer" reticles Schmidt offered, he of course has/had a bunch of the other .2 mil reticles but used this scope on his KAC in a training class he attended with his SR-25, he ended up beating everyone out at long range and felt the .5 mil reticle actually helped him make quick decisions at distance that gave him an advantage. So while everyone might be pursuing the latest and greatest, even the decent reticles of yesteryear can be quite effective.
I know there are those who love Tremor's but I am not one of them, they are an interesting concept but when it comes to tree reticles I am in the "less is more" camp and prefer not to have my view too cluttered. For me, the tree is a backup if I cannot dial and as such I do not want it thick or cluttered, but again, this is personal preference.
It's too much for me on a crossover rifle. Currently I have my Vortex Gen III 6-36 on my Bergara B14R trainer rifle, this is largely a range rifle that I do not plan on carrying through the woods so I don't care that the scope weighs 3 pounds. On my custom Kidd 10/22 I have the Vortex LHT 4.5-22x50 (22oz) because this is a rifle I would carry into the woods so I wanted a very lightweight kit and the LHT gives me that even though it has other limitations.
Yes, I would love it if all the scopes I like were under 28oz but that is a pipe dream. I have had to move up my weight threshold due to this very reason, at 30oz there are only a handful of scopes that would fit, but at 35oz the options increase almost tenfold. Right now I have the Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42 mainly because I wanted an industry standard 42mm scope to compare with the new March 1.5-15x42, the above ATACR 4-16 makes for a very compelling scope at the 30oz barrier; however, it is a 4x erector scope in a world where many shooters are looking at 5x/6x and even higher.
this thread was incredible. Incredible source of info, I would love to get this for EVERY scope on the market
I know the Burris is a popular "mid tier" choice but I was not all that impressed looking thru it (considering the hype) I have the Athlon Cronus which is around the same price and in every way (glass, fit and finish, turrets) I liked the Athlon more. I also think the Toric has far better glass. (I have heard the Maven and Delta do as well)
So my question is....why does the Burris get the amount of love and hype that it does?? I don't think its a bad scope but it shouldnt be mentioned in the same breath as the rest of this field
I know the Burris is a popular "mid tier" choice but I was not all that impressed looking thru it (considering the hype) I have the Athlon Cronus which is around the same price and in every way (glass, fit and finish, turrets) I liked the Athlon more. I also think the Toric has far better glass. (I have heard the Maven and Delta do as well)
So my question is....why does the Burris get the amount of love and hype that it does?? I don't think its a bad scope but it shouldnt be mentioned in the same breath as the rest of this field
^^^ Which Burris are you referring to, there are a number of different models with different optical formulas.
Awesome review! I'm curious how the Nightforce ATACR 7-35 compares. It seems like a very popular scope in the $3k price range, but I haven't seen it included in many comparison tests before.
I found this test interesting and it contained the NF 7-35. I don’t agree/disagree with the test, but found it useful to see a backlight-style scenario in a scope test.
Optics Comparison
Purpose As a competitive shooter, we often hear the question of which optic is best. While there are many components of an optic that contribute to the overall quality and its ability to perform, this review only focuses on optical clarity/resolution. The definition of clarity and resolution for...
www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com
^^^ I have serious concerns over the validity of Kinetic security solutions testing methodology and findings.
Yeah, i get it. On one hand, he’s an engineer and the maker of some respected tuners, right? But besides that one test, I haven’t heard anything from him about scopes.
I have no opinion on tuners, but I guess I did like his testing methodology. But I’m not schooled enough in the engineering arts to know if his methods are valid.
Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get too out of hand here. A computer engineer isn't any more of an engineer than a chiropractor is a doctor.
Yeah, point taken. Easy to over-esteem certain fields.
But I assumed he was a mechanical engineer due to his tuner manufacturing?
