I have gotten a handful of request to spill my guts on the results of our scope testing with the ZCO and other Gucci glass, so here goes: For reference, your source for this review is a self funded, non industry 30 something with 20/15 vision, with full fledged scope snobbery tendencies. I have obtained most of my glass as a SH exchange whore. (Thank you mods/ low light for allowing us this on the site). I have owned most of the good stuff or done this sort of testing with nearly all of them- SB(s), NF ATACRS, Kahles (s), Vortex Razors/ AMG (s), Minox(s), TT, Swaros, Steiner (s), IOR, Leupy- Mark5. Still haven't used a henny. Environment is sea level near the Texas coast where mirage is a way of life.
I am no expert by any means, but I have found myself in a unique situation to have all of these optics on hand to test; most I own, if not team members. Testing has been executed multiple days and conditions. And I think that is one of the most useful variables when testing optics- having all samples out in equi conditions at the same time. They can all look different given different conditions. The glass becomes much more objective once you have them out. All scopes tested off of a rifle on a bag. One thing I would say is 10 minutes behind your buddy's rifle is not enough time to learn the glass. We have pulled in a wide variety of shooters and non shooters to see where they would stack things (Johnny deer hunter, wives, F18 fighter jet pilots, doctors, engineers, all different walks). And most all come off that initial 5 minute viewing saying something to the tune of "wow, yeah they're all good". So yes they are all good, of course. But this is a review for the upper echileon of scope snobery. 1st world pains at its finest. If you find yourself reading this, your life isn't so bad, so stop agonizing the decision. And yes the high end stuff is worth it. Your kids will figure out how to pay for college.
At the end of the day, there must be a winner, and there was in this test. The results became much more obvious out to distance and with higher magnification. This is your free review that is unbiased from anything. Nobody sent me nothing, i have no conflicts of interest. Hell, most industry guys wouldn't know my name. So if you don't agree with my viewpoints, that is ok. I'm not in the game of defending anything- just calling it how I see it; I am taking my time to write this and help other folks on their buying decisions. Of course there is an emotional context of these high dollar type optics. But I would challenge you to find somebody more brand agnostic than myself. I promise to call it how I see it. Other media sources/ Frank has covered most of the mechanical stuff, and I would say I agree with him. But it's all stuff you probably already knew about before this. So instead of hash it out, I am focusing this review on the glass/ function of the scopes. The stuff you can't just see from the internet.
Scopes on review:
Schmidt & Bender PM2 5-25 H2CMR
ZCO 5-27 MPCT1
Tangent Theta TT 5-25 Gen 2 XR
Resolution/ Clarity (15x Magnification):
SB- 96
ZCO- 98
TT- 100
Resolution/ Clarity (25x):
SB- 95
ZCO- 95
TT- 99
To me, this is the most important attribute of glass. It is the difference to me of being able to observe the direction of plate movement at 950 yards in mirage. I am not talking to the guys who say, 'this glass never caused me to miss a target'. Yes, I hear you dude. But this glass in this test is different. If you're reading, I'd assume you think this kind of investment is reasonable and worth it. To me, this sampling of scopes is some of the best on the market to choose from.
First, Schmidt is the gold standard for a reason. I think it is one of the best values on the market at this standpoint. It is incredibly clear especially now at the price point you can find them. It is very clear at 15 and a slight degradation as you increase power to 25. I found it held its own with the ZCO in a lot of ways. Everything was clear, detail is apparent and defined, and true to life representative of what is actually going on in terms of conditions. I am a big fan of schmidt glass.
IE: I have a 66% ipsc at 950 yards on our range that had a 2-3 " group on the shoulder and then had a full size ipsc at 1000 with a few scattered 6mm/ 223 (low energy impacts) shots on the belly of the target. I used all scopes at 15 and 25 x mag to observe during the afternoon, moderate mirage. For a base line of comparison - In a Gen2 razor or a Kahles 624i - I could make out one black blob on the 950 target, but unable to see anything on the belly of the 1000 (remember mirage). With the Schmidt - i can see the target borders clearly, minimal edge distortion, I can make out a large spot with slight differentiation of individual shots, but nothing finite, the shots on the belly are just faintly visible. I don't have to work hard to question they are there, but not as obvious as other options.
The ZCO picks these shots up a bit better with a touch more resolution while at 15 x, but it is nearly a wash between it and the schmidt at 25 x mag. The ZCO is impressive especially at 15 x in terms of clarity / resolution, but I found it left a bit to be desired while at 25 x. Full magnification gives way to very slight blurring on the target borders while introducing a bit of general fuzziness and less light transmission than the tangent. I would say it is very much in the range of clarity at 25 x as the Schmidt. I would still put both of these in front of a 7-35 ATACR in terms of clarity alone. But this is where the TT really exponentially separates out in front. I found most of the clarity to be similar at 15 power between the three, but still would give it to TT with the ZCO right behind it.
Tangent is still in another league in terms of clarity- I can see each individual bullet splash in that group as well as the scattered belly shots are all directly obvious. General vegetation is much more clear, and the plate boundaries are much better defined on 25 x. Compared to the other two. This is where the money goes in my opinion. Tangent glass has the most clarity not by a long shot, but obvious enough in mirage. It is like that moment you get behind swaro binos for the first time, and kind of forget you are looking through a device. Everything looks as it should, just magnified. Nothing is synthetic about the picture quality it's just quality crystal clear. The ZCO has a lot of that, but not to the same degree. All of them are elite. But once mirage is introduced, the TT is the clear winner as it gives me very 'useable' and layered mirage to scan through. You can do that with all of the above, but Tangent does it best making the least compromise on one specific quality.
Parallax/ Depth of field/ parallax forgiveness:
SB- 96
ZCO- 98
TT-99
Schmidt's might be mildly picky on the lower end, but great past 400 yd. It parallaxes down the lowest. I really like that attribute. I like how you can adjust the numbers to your eyes. It doesn't interval perfectly to my eye but very close, but at least lining up the lower end stuff is helpful.
ZCO was flawless, not picky. I really like how it parallaxes low enough like the schmidt to dry fire indoors, very smooth controls. Very well laid out. Accurate to my eyes.
TT is the most forgiving, but you need a good 30-40 yds to resolve it. I just like being able to have the option; but probably part of the no free lunch situation- as it is one of the most forgiving past 3-400. It doesn't really matter where you put it, it's always on. Very impressive.
Field of View:
SB- 97
ZCO-95
TT- 99
Fairly objective here. We did a test on a 1000 yard NRA range and reported numbers based on the static shooting lane numbers while at 25 and 15 power. Tangent has the largest field of view. I would would place the cross hair in the middle of the X and observe how far down the line I could see. At 15 power, Tangent could get into the middle of the 4, Schmidt was at the front edge of the 4 while the ZCO was able to see the back side of the 3. Thus less FOV. Refer to pictures if confused. But Frank brought up a very good point in his podcast that you are subject to the accuracy of said magnification ring. I do not have any way of measuring that besides what the manufacturers have printed on the mag ring.
The only thing that I would mention, is that I think some folks don't realize that they might prefer less field of view. Once combined with eye relief, I have found some people really do prefer a smaller field of view as it gives the perception of a larger image or that you are watching said image 'closer up'. I think that is one of those unspoken parts of why everyone says scopes are so subjective. So I wouldn't really use this category as a negative for the ZCO, just a different way of doing business. If you like to look at targets close up when shooting, the ZCO might suit your tastes better. I really like it, but in terms of who has the most FOV - the Tangent did in this test. But like the Gen2 razor had more FOV than any of these scopes. So I would say that all of these have adequate FOV and balance-- just depends on your preference on the spectrum you want to go. My through the scopes are just about pointless, but here I'll put them under FOV just to show that test I was talking about. Image is much better in real life.
ZCO @ 25 X @ 1000 yards
Brightness/Contrast/Color:
SB- 92
ZCO- 98
TT- 98
Alright, here is the full on ass hole snobery category- this is the note of bergamot and lemon zest BS category. When we speak in terms of scope preference, I would say this might be one of the main areas of different taste to different folks. That's why I lump them all into one category. Cause honestly it's probably not the most important. I personally strive for something the recreates an image as true to scale as possible. I want to see the exact same thing I would if I were up closer to it. I would say all of these are in line with each other, minus brightness of the Schmidt. But yeah yeah, we all have different preferences in glass- Kind of like how we can all go to best buy and prefer slightly different versions of flat screens with different features to relate the picture quality in terms of brightness and contrast.
The schmidt is tried and true- use that as your control. Everyone has a schmidt, right? If not you should... These numbers are more of a function of the balance of said brightness/ contrast/ color. I feel like brightness and contrast are lowest in the schmidt, but this can be beneficial for bright Texas days or when shooting amongst high reflectivity like over water. Sometimes the TT/ZCO might be a bit too bright in those perceived environments, and more light transmission shrinks your own pupil- giving it a bit less surface area to focus on the retina that then effects eyebox. Regardless - in terms of brightness, schmidt's are not. Contrast is there though. The schmidt color is the least vibrant in this test, but still good. But would not be my first choice of a hunting scope needing it at daylight edges.
Regardless; in average conditions, the TT and ZCO are both phenomenal in terms of brightness, color, and contrast. I would say the ZCO might have a bit more contrast in its image, but nothing synthesized just a very clean; pretty, true to scale color rendition excellent image. The TT might give a bit more brightness; with perfect color, contrast, brightness. I have had them both out in low light, but I have not had the ZCO in very low light conditions, but from franks pictures I would imagine on par with the tangent which i find excellent in very low light. I wouldn't be surprised if it beats it with its 36 mm main tube. Color might pull in a touch more orange than Tangent, but eh; I really could not pick a winner in this category between the two. I would call them both nearly perfect. My through the scopes are just about pointless, but here you go.
Fit and Finish:
SB- 91
ZCO- 100
TT- 98
Probably my most next most subjective category. But I feel this is where ZCO is boss. That thing just looks incredible. The beefy main tube, look and feel of the turret (more to come on this later). MMMhh beefcake. Well done guys. Just looks like a badddd MF. The finish on it is very nice- sort of that smooth matte finish on an atacr. I like the whole look of the entire package. I like the knurling on the turrets, the layout of all the controls, the focus adjustment with its fin, damn; very well done. TT is right there with it, but I would give the sex appeal to the ZCO. SB is class and mature. Functional, but she's not the hottest girl at the dance.
Eyebox @ 15 x mag:
SB- 96
ZCO- 99
TT- 97
Eyebox @ 25x mag:
SB- 97
ZCO- 94
TT- 98
This is my subjective interpretation of the ever nebulous term "eyebox". I define this as my interpretation of the ease by which to maintain a clear edge to edge sight picture. The higher the score, the more forgiving said eye box is. The eye relief is a length of measurement, and all are reasonable in this test- I am not sure the exact numbers, but they all felt fine. Eyebox is what most positional shooters are interested in. One of my favorite shooters and mentors had mentioned how he saw eyebox as a cone of light and the angle of that cone is different for different scopes. Why some can be a bit more picky in different magnifications. This holds in this example. I feel the TT and SB have a more gradual? cone of light and thus the forgiveness of the eyebox is fairly well spread out amongst the entire range of magnification.
The ZCO was awesome and i would say the best at 15 X mag, but it became much more picky at 25x magnification. One non scientific test was the ease by which to take through the scope pics. The ZCO was very difficult to line up and hold steady everything in focus at 25 x magnification for through the scope pics, but it was the easiest at 15 x mag. Thus a steeper cone of light. It reminds me of an ATACR eyebox. The other two were a bit easier at 25x. So for general PRS, positional shooting, the ZCO being tighter at 25 x wouldn't matter too much to me since we are prone. But i guess it really depends where you would want the flexibility. The TT/ SB are more even eyebox flexibility throughout the magnification range, but the ZCO gives you the most forgiving eyebox at 15 x which is where most would be running it closer to. Honestly smart call on their design in my opinion.
Turrets:
SB- 94
ZCO- 91
TT- 100
I have never really let a scope turret turn me off of a scope, but this feature alone, is a deal breaker for me personally. Call me crazy, but any optic above 3k should have perfect turrets, when you move it to a setting, it should be immediately readable, tactile and obvious. The TT has this in spades. All of the above, TT is just perfect. Beefy, tactile, the most defined and obvious detent where there is never any question to where you are; just perfection. I love everything about it. The size, feel, and tool less zero. Seriously just the best. That might be the one thing any body agrees on with scopes- that TT turrets are the best. Next is Schmidt. I used to be a kahles fanboy, and had always 'ignored' the schmidts because there was too many acronyms to study... lol; And i had felt an MTC turret at first that I really disliked. But being objective, I have come full circle and believe schmidt glass is worth so much and found myself totally fine now w/ schmidt turrets. DT are the most tactile, but the spacing is just a bit too close. You get used to it, but it needs a little more obvious separation on the markings from each other. MTC standard turrets are fine spacing wise and feel, but you have abe lincoln hat elevation turret. LT/MTC are probably my favorite, but it all comes down to feel and whether the marking reflect where i am. I have never had an issue w/ schmidts after I practiced with them for a bit. They are very strong tactile clicks, very well defined yet smooth. Like HK Dave said- rolls royce- yeah sounds right.
The ZCO turrets are where it falls for me. And a handful of other shooters thus far. The turret detents themselves feel fantastic. The monster knurling is beautiful, it is very tactile, but less of a defined thunk as compared to the other two. I would relate them very similarly to an ATACR. They have a bit more spring/ play to them before moving to the next detent. This is fine, just gives a different feel, but where I ran in to issues is that it started to become user dependent on how I would release the turret to where the marking would line up to. It was very similar issues to what I saw with the ZP5 turrets where its a floating turret issue where you are not sure whether that is 6.5 or 6.4 cause the indicator might land at 6.45 or 6.48 or 6.43. They utilize that same sliding sleeve style turret as a gen 2 razor, that has always bugged me in the first place. I guess I have a natural downward pressure on the turret in addition to rotating it, but this has lead to that collar/sleeve moving downward and pseudo-locking sort of situation. It seemed as if this is part of the issue in the first place and personally think we need to cut it out with locking turrets in general (the hell you guys doing with your rifles that you need to lock it out? who's not verifying your turrets before engaging? ) regardless, it is leading to this shifting turret reading as well as whenever i go to actually lock it, I have to jimmy it down to the right slot- almost like getting a tight fitting key into the door. Maybe it improves with time, who knows; but the turrets of the ZCO are its biggest limitation to me, but the locking mechanism ate my lunch, and didn't get any better. Before you say it is a lemon, this same issue was repeated on another ZCO527. The interesting thing is that both samples of ZCO had perfect elevation turrets. No play even or ghosting of that turret. Similar positive feeling, solid turret.
Reticle Offerings/ Modern Applicability:
SB- 88
ZCO- 99
TT- 98
Poor Schmidts; I just want to be in their conference room when they are coming up with reticles to hear their rational on rets. I happen to freaking love the H2CMR and would call it just about perfect to me and my preferences. But they continue to blue ball the market with reticles and i think this is one of the reasons why they dropped in popularity over the last few years. Hopefully by the time they figure out what the market wants, guys will come to the good side and stop insiting on crap to obscuring spotting. You guys are spending 4 k on glass to then want to obscure it? alright i digress.
Contrast that with ZCO. They nailed it. I'm not sure there is a more perfect reticle on the market IMO. That center dot is apparent and useable down to 12 power. Unlike the 7-35 where I needed to be at least 15 power to pick it up reliably. The reticle thickness, .2 holds w/ contralateral .5; WOW. It is perfect. My only gripes would be to carry out those .5s in a symmetrical fashion. The Tangent has the gen2XR which is a bit thin for some folks, but I feel at home with it. Frank had mentioned on a podcast how he didn't need his hand held with .2s, and I kind of agree with that. I prefer the gen2XR over the Tree personally, albeit, I have not looked through a gen 3 XR besides what @NoLegs24 had posted. But that looks to be well executed.
Overall: (out of 10)
SB- 9.41
ZCO- 9.67
TT- 9.86
First off, I think there is a hidden gem in SB scopes (once ya'll get over your fetish with bush style reticles) finding them used in the low 2s. I would rather have two schmidts than a tangent in a lot of ways. If you want to roll the Minox QC dice and score a good one, those are also very nice for where they have been going as well. But you're not here for 2k range scopes; you want the baddest there is out there- TT or a ZCO dude? - How does the ZCO stack up glass wise? And remember before you get butt hurt- this is analogous to wine tasting for men...
Yes; It is a phenomenal scope. Sexy as hell, glass is very nice, hands down the most relevant reticles on the market imo. But it ain't a Tangent. A direct competitor, but not the top in my opinion. Yes, the tangent is refined, robust, dialed in feature wise, but it all comes down to the glass. The Canadians have it figured out. ZCO has it figured out too, and I would be perfectly content with it, but it's not tangent clarity, brightness, resolution, color, fov. It is exactly what I would imagine having already owned kahles and atacr scopes. Advance them forward ____ amount your assigned percentage value, and you have the ZCO. I see it as a beefy, robust, beautiful advancement on the Atacr 7-35 with a bit of austrian vibe. Maybe that's secondary to my environment, but the results are repeatable and fairly objective to a wide array of eyes that Tangent takes the cake.
I see them (TT and ZCO) as similarly priced at this point once you factor in the 36 mm add on with the ZCO when we all have 34 mm stuff around. At this point, I think the ZCO turrets just need to drop the locking feature, and it would be quite comparable. I would be much more likely to give it the nod in a PRS style scope since the mid magnification eyebox on the ZCO is so awesome. So my 4 scracomoles go to the canadians for now, subject to change.
Yes the ZCO is a phenomenal scope. I think they are one of the best scopes available at this time. I would be perfectly happy running one. And in a lot of ways, might be the best scope for PRS style shooting alone with that generous mid mag. But I promise you, it is not a tangent.
I am no expert by any means, but I have found myself in a unique situation to have all of these optics on hand to test; most I own, if not team members. Testing has been executed multiple days and conditions. And I think that is one of the most useful variables when testing optics- having all samples out in equi conditions at the same time. They can all look different given different conditions. The glass becomes much more objective once you have them out. All scopes tested off of a rifle on a bag. One thing I would say is 10 minutes behind your buddy's rifle is not enough time to learn the glass. We have pulled in a wide variety of shooters and non shooters to see where they would stack things (Johnny deer hunter, wives, F18 fighter jet pilots, doctors, engineers, all different walks). And most all come off that initial 5 minute viewing saying something to the tune of "wow, yeah they're all good". So yes they are all good, of course. But this is a review for the upper echileon of scope snobery. 1st world pains at its finest. If you find yourself reading this, your life isn't so bad, so stop agonizing the decision. And yes the high end stuff is worth it. Your kids will figure out how to pay for college.
At the end of the day, there must be a winner, and there was in this test. The results became much more obvious out to distance and with higher magnification. This is your free review that is unbiased from anything. Nobody sent me nothing, i have no conflicts of interest. Hell, most industry guys wouldn't know my name. So if you don't agree with my viewpoints, that is ok. I'm not in the game of defending anything- just calling it how I see it; I am taking my time to write this and help other folks on their buying decisions. Of course there is an emotional context of these high dollar type optics. But I would challenge you to find somebody more brand agnostic than myself. I promise to call it how I see it. Other media sources/ Frank has covered most of the mechanical stuff, and I would say I agree with him. But it's all stuff you probably already knew about before this. So instead of hash it out, I am focusing this review on the glass/ function of the scopes. The stuff you can't just see from the internet.
Scopes on review:
Schmidt & Bender PM2 5-25 H2CMR
ZCO 5-27 MPCT1
Tangent Theta TT 5-25 Gen 2 XR
Resolution/ Clarity (15x Magnification):
SB- 96
ZCO- 98
TT- 100
Resolution/ Clarity (25x):
SB- 95
ZCO- 95
TT- 99
To me, this is the most important attribute of glass. It is the difference to me of being able to observe the direction of plate movement at 950 yards in mirage. I am not talking to the guys who say, 'this glass never caused me to miss a target'. Yes, I hear you dude. But this glass in this test is different. If you're reading, I'd assume you think this kind of investment is reasonable and worth it. To me, this sampling of scopes is some of the best on the market to choose from.
First, Schmidt is the gold standard for a reason. I think it is one of the best values on the market at this standpoint. It is incredibly clear especially now at the price point you can find them. It is very clear at 15 and a slight degradation as you increase power to 25. I found it held its own with the ZCO in a lot of ways. Everything was clear, detail is apparent and defined, and true to life representative of what is actually going on in terms of conditions. I am a big fan of schmidt glass.
IE: I have a 66% ipsc at 950 yards on our range that had a 2-3 " group on the shoulder and then had a full size ipsc at 1000 with a few scattered 6mm/ 223 (low energy impacts) shots on the belly of the target. I used all scopes at 15 and 25 x mag to observe during the afternoon, moderate mirage. For a base line of comparison - In a Gen2 razor or a Kahles 624i - I could make out one black blob on the 950 target, but unable to see anything on the belly of the 1000 (remember mirage). With the Schmidt - i can see the target borders clearly, minimal edge distortion, I can make out a large spot with slight differentiation of individual shots, but nothing finite, the shots on the belly are just faintly visible. I don't have to work hard to question they are there, but not as obvious as other options.
The ZCO picks these shots up a bit better with a touch more resolution while at 15 x, but it is nearly a wash between it and the schmidt at 25 x mag. The ZCO is impressive especially at 15 x in terms of clarity / resolution, but I found it left a bit to be desired while at 25 x. Full magnification gives way to very slight blurring on the target borders while introducing a bit of general fuzziness and less light transmission than the tangent. I would say it is very much in the range of clarity at 25 x as the Schmidt. I would still put both of these in front of a 7-35 ATACR in terms of clarity alone. But this is where the TT really exponentially separates out in front. I found most of the clarity to be similar at 15 power between the three, but still would give it to TT with the ZCO right behind it.
Tangent is still in another league in terms of clarity- I can see each individual bullet splash in that group as well as the scattered belly shots are all directly obvious. General vegetation is much more clear, and the plate boundaries are much better defined on 25 x. Compared to the other two. This is where the money goes in my opinion. Tangent glass has the most clarity not by a long shot, but obvious enough in mirage. It is like that moment you get behind swaro binos for the first time, and kind of forget you are looking through a device. Everything looks as it should, just magnified. Nothing is synthetic about the picture quality it's just quality crystal clear. The ZCO has a lot of that, but not to the same degree. All of them are elite. But once mirage is introduced, the TT is the clear winner as it gives me very 'useable' and layered mirage to scan through. You can do that with all of the above, but Tangent does it best making the least compromise on one specific quality.
Parallax/ Depth of field/ parallax forgiveness:
SB- 96
ZCO- 98
TT-99
Schmidt's might be mildly picky on the lower end, but great past 400 yd. It parallaxes down the lowest. I really like that attribute. I like how you can adjust the numbers to your eyes. It doesn't interval perfectly to my eye but very close, but at least lining up the lower end stuff is helpful.
ZCO was flawless, not picky. I really like how it parallaxes low enough like the schmidt to dry fire indoors, very smooth controls. Very well laid out. Accurate to my eyes.
TT is the most forgiving, but you need a good 30-40 yds to resolve it. I just like being able to have the option; but probably part of the no free lunch situation- as it is one of the most forgiving past 3-400. It doesn't really matter where you put it, it's always on. Very impressive.
Field of View:
SB- 97
ZCO-95
TT- 99
Fairly objective here. We did a test on a 1000 yard NRA range and reported numbers based on the static shooting lane numbers while at 25 and 15 power. Tangent has the largest field of view. I would would place the cross hair in the middle of the X and observe how far down the line I could see. At 15 power, Tangent could get into the middle of the 4, Schmidt was at the front edge of the 4 while the ZCO was able to see the back side of the 3. Thus less FOV. Refer to pictures if confused. But Frank brought up a very good point in his podcast that you are subject to the accuracy of said magnification ring. I do not have any way of measuring that besides what the manufacturers have printed on the mag ring.
The only thing that I would mention, is that I think some folks don't realize that they might prefer less field of view. Once combined with eye relief, I have found some people really do prefer a smaller field of view as it gives the perception of a larger image or that you are watching said image 'closer up'. I think that is one of those unspoken parts of why everyone says scopes are so subjective. So I wouldn't really use this category as a negative for the ZCO, just a different way of doing business. If you like to look at targets close up when shooting, the ZCO might suit your tastes better. I really like it, but in terms of who has the most FOV - the Tangent did in this test. But like the Gen2 razor had more FOV than any of these scopes. So I would say that all of these have adequate FOV and balance-- just depends on your preference on the spectrum you want to go. My through the scopes are just about pointless, but here I'll put them under FOV just to show that test I was talking about. Image is much better in real life.
ZCO @ 25 X @ 1000 yards
Brightness/Contrast/Color:
SB- 92
ZCO- 98
TT- 98
Alright, here is the full on ass hole snobery category- this is the note of bergamot and lemon zest BS category. When we speak in terms of scope preference, I would say this might be one of the main areas of different taste to different folks. That's why I lump them all into one category. Cause honestly it's probably not the most important. I personally strive for something the recreates an image as true to scale as possible. I want to see the exact same thing I would if I were up closer to it. I would say all of these are in line with each other, minus brightness of the Schmidt. But yeah yeah, we all have different preferences in glass- Kind of like how we can all go to best buy and prefer slightly different versions of flat screens with different features to relate the picture quality in terms of brightness and contrast.
The schmidt is tried and true- use that as your control. Everyone has a schmidt, right? If not you should... These numbers are more of a function of the balance of said brightness/ contrast/ color. I feel like brightness and contrast are lowest in the schmidt, but this can be beneficial for bright Texas days or when shooting amongst high reflectivity like over water. Sometimes the TT/ZCO might be a bit too bright in those perceived environments, and more light transmission shrinks your own pupil- giving it a bit less surface area to focus on the retina that then effects eyebox. Regardless - in terms of brightness, schmidt's are not. Contrast is there though. The schmidt color is the least vibrant in this test, but still good. But would not be my first choice of a hunting scope needing it at daylight edges.
Regardless; in average conditions, the TT and ZCO are both phenomenal in terms of brightness, color, and contrast. I would say the ZCO might have a bit more contrast in its image, but nothing synthesized just a very clean; pretty, true to scale color rendition excellent image. The TT might give a bit more brightness; with perfect color, contrast, brightness. I have had them both out in low light, but I have not had the ZCO in very low light conditions, but from franks pictures I would imagine on par with the tangent which i find excellent in very low light. I wouldn't be surprised if it beats it with its 36 mm main tube. Color might pull in a touch more orange than Tangent, but eh; I really could not pick a winner in this category between the two. I would call them both nearly perfect. My through the scopes are just about pointless, but here you go.
Fit and Finish:
SB- 91
ZCO- 100
TT- 98
Probably my most next most subjective category. But I feel this is where ZCO is boss. That thing just looks incredible. The beefy main tube, look and feel of the turret (more to come on this later). MMMhh beefcake. Well done guys. Just looks like a badddd MF. The finish on it is very nice- sort of that smooth matte finish on an atacr. I like the whole look of the entire package. I like the knurling on the turrets, the layout of all the controls, the focus adjustment with its fin, damn; very well done. TT is right there with it, but I would give the sex appeal to the ZCO. SB is class and mature. Functional, but she's not the hottest girl at the dance.
Eyebox @ 15 x mag:
SB- 96
ZCO- 99
TT- 97
Eyebox @ 25x mag:
SB- 97
ZCO- 94
TT- 98
This is my subjective interpretation of the ever nebulous term "eyebox". I define this as my interpretation of the ease by which to maintain a clear edge to edge sight picture. The higher the score, the more forgiving said eye box is. The eye relief is a length of measurement, and all are reasonable in this test- I am not sure the exact numbers, but they all felt fine. Eyebox is what most positional shooters are interested in. One of my favorite shooters and mentors had mentioned how he saw eyebox as a cone of light and the angle of that cone is different for different scopes. Why some can be a bit more picky in different magnifications. This holds in this example. I feel the TT and SB have a more gradual? cone of light and thus the forgiveness of the eyebox is fairly well spread out amongst the entire range of magnification.
The ZCO was awesome and i would say the best at 15 X mag, but it became much more picky at 25x magnification. One non scientific test was the ease by which to take through the scope pics. The ZCO was very difficult to line up and hold steady everything in focus at 25 x magnification for through the scope pics, but it was the easiest at 15 x mag. Thus a steeper cone of light. It reminds me of an ATACR eyebox. The other two were a bit easier at 25x. So for general PRS, positional shooting, the ZCO being tighter at 25 x wouldn't matter too much to me since we are prone. But i guess it really depends where you would want the flexibility. The TT/ SB are more even eyebox flexibility throughout the magnification range, but the ZCO gives you the most forgiving eyebox at 15 x which is where most would be running it closer to. Honestly smart call on their design in my opinion.
Turrets:
SB- 94
ZCO- 91
TT- 100
I have never really let a scope turret turn me off of a scope, but this feature alone, is a deal breaker for me personally. Call me crazy, but any optic above 3k should have perfect turrets, when you move it to a setting, it should be immediately readable, tactile and obvious. The TT has this in spades. All of the above, TT is just perfect. Beefy, tactile, the most defined and obvious detent where there is never any question to where you are; just perfection. I love everything about it. The size, feel, and tool less zero. Seriously just the best. That might be the one thing any body agrees on with scopes- that TT turrets are the best. Next is Schmidt. I used to be a kahles fanboy, and had always 'ignored' the schmidts because there was too many acronyms to study... lol; And i had felt an MTC turret at first that I really disliked. But being objective, I have come full circle and believe schmidt glass is worth so much and found myself totally fine now w/ schmidt turrets. DT are the most tactile, but the spacing is just a bit too close. You get used to it, but it needs a little more obvious separation on the markings from each other. MTC standard turrets are fine spacing wise and feel, but you have abe lincoln hat elevation turret. LT/MTC are probably my favorite, but it all comes down to feel and whether the marking reflect where i am. I have never had an issue w/ schmidts after I practiced with them for a bit. They are very strong tactile clicks, very well defined yet smooth. Like HK Dave said- rolls royce- yeah sounds right.
The ZCO turrets are where it falls for me. And a handful of other shooters thus far. The turret detents themselves feel fantastic. The monster knurling is beautiful, it is very tactile, but less of a defined thunk as compared to the other two. I would relate them very similarly to an ATACR. They have a bit more spring/ play to them before moving to the next detent. This is fine, just gives a different feel, but where I ran in to issues is that it started to become user dependent on how I would release the turret to where the marking would line up to. It was very similar issues to what I saw with the ZP5 turrets where its a floating turret issue where you are not sure whether that is 6.5 or 6.4 cause the indicator might land at 6.45 or 6.48 or 6.43. They utilize that same sliding sleeve style turret as a gen 2 razor, that has always bugged me in the first place. I guess I have a natural downward pressure on the turret in addition to rotating it, but this has lead to that collar/sleeve moving downward and pseudo-locking sort of situation. It seemed as if this is part of the issue in the first place and personally think we need to cut it out with locking turrets in general (the hell you guys doing with your rifles that you need to lock it out? who's not verifying your turrets before engaging? ) regardless, it is leading to this shifting turret reading as well as whenever i go to actually lock it, I have to jimmy it down to the right slot- almost like getting a tight fitting key into the door. Maybe it improves with time, who knows; but the turrets of the ZCO are its biggest limitation to me, but the locking mechanism ate my lunch, and didn't get any better. Before you say it is a lemon, this same issue was repeated on another ZCO527. The interesting thing is that both samples of ZCO had perfect elevation turrets. No play even or ghosting of that turret. Similar positive feeling, solid turret.
Reticle Offerings/ Modern Applicability:
SB- 88
ZCO- 99
TT- 98
Poor Schmidts; I just want to be in their conference room when they are coming up with reticles to hear their rational on rets. I happen to freaking love the H2CMR and would call it just about perfect to me and my preferences. But they continue to blue ball the market with reticles and i think this is one of the reasons why they dropped in popularity over the last few years. Hopefully by the time they figure out what the market wants, guys will come to the good side and stop insiting on crap to obscuring spotting. You guys are spending 4 k on glass to then want to obscure it? alright i digress.
Contrast that with ZCO. They nailed it. I'm not sure there is a more perfect reticle on the market IMO. That center dot is apparent and useable down to 12 power. Unlike the 7-35 where I needed to be at least 15 power to pick it up reliably. The reticle thickness, .2 holds w/ contralateral .5; WOW. It is perfect. My only gripes would be to carry out those .5s in a symmetrical fashion. The Tangent has the gen2XR which is a bit thin for some folks, but I feel at home with it. Frank had mentioned on a podcast how he didn't need his hand held with .2s, and I kind of agree with that. I prefer the gen2XR over the Tree personally, albeit, I have not looked through a gen 3 XR besides what @NoLegs24 had posted. But that looks to be well executed.
Overall: (out of 10)
SB- 9.41
ZCO- 9.67
TT- 9.86
First off, I think there is a hidden gem in SB scopes (once ya'll get over your fetish with bush style reticles) finding them used in the low 2s. I would rather have two schmidts than a tangent in a lot of ways. If you want to roll the Minox QC dice and score a good one, those are also very nice for where they have been going as well. But you're not here for 2k range scopes; you want the baddest there is out there- TT or a ZCO dude? - How does the ZCO stack up glass wise? And remember before you get butt hurt- this is analogous to wine tasting for men...
Yes; It is a phenomenal scope. Sexy as hell, glass is very nice, hands down the most relevant reticles on the market imo. But it ain't a Tangent. A direct competitor, but not the top in my opinion. Yes, the tangent is refined, robust, dialed in feature wise, but it all comes down to the glass. The Canadians have it figured out. ZCO has it figured out too, and I would be perfectly content with it, but it's not tangent clarity, brightness, resolution, color, fov. It is exactly what I would imagine having already owned kahles and atacr scopes. Advance them forward ____ amount your assigned percentage value, and you have the ZCO. I see it as a beefy, robust, beautiful advancement on the Atacr 7-35 with a bit of austrian vibe. Maybe that's secondary to my environment, but the results are repeatable and fairly objective to a wide array of eyes that Tangent takes the cake.
I see them (TT and ZCO) as similarly priced at this point once you factor in the 36 mm add on with the ZCO when we all have 34 mm stuff around. At this point, I think the ZCO turrets just need to drop the locking feature, and it would be quite comparable. I would be much more likely to give it the nod in a PRS style scope since the mid magnification eyebox on the ZCO is so awesome. So my 4 scracomoles go to the canadians for now, subject to change.
Yes the ZCO is a phenomenal scope. I think they are one of the best scopes available at this time. I would be perfectly happy running one. And in a lot of ways, might be the best scope for PRS style shooting alone with that generous mid mag. But I promise you, it is not a tangent.
Last edited:
