-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Bushnell vs ZCO
- Thread starter NiteQwill
- Start date
Not that I'm a non-poor...
but in perspective, $2k more for a top tier optic over a mid grade optic is not really that much $$
The cost per round of shooting isn't cheap, but compared to motorsports, watersports, and other competitive sports which cost $$, a $3.6k optic is a small part on a race car.
To get an alpha ANYTHING for under $4k is cheap IMO.
Alpha French fries are like $200
but in perspective, $2k more for a top tier optic over a mid grade optic is not really that much $$
The cost per round of shooting isn't cheap, but compared to motorsports, watersports, and other competitive sports which cost $$, a $3.6k optic is a small part on a race car.
To get an alpha ANYTHING for under $4k is cheap IMO.
Alpha French fries are like $200
Indeed. Pay for a boat that guzzles 40-50 gph running offshore and this sport is like a day at the fair.
I guess I’m a poors as I don’t own many $5000 scopes. Most of the ones I used didn’t belong to me personally.
Lmao. $2000 vs $5000 is a big difference to most people. If the $2000 scope does the job I don’t see the point in paying $5000 for a scope when both can do the job equally as well. I’d rather spend the extra $3000 on another Gun or ammo or something else. And as I said, if you can’t hit the target with a poor mans scope then a $5000 one ain’t going to help you do it any better.
Lmao. $2000 vs $5000 is a big difference to most people. If the $2000 scope does the job I don’t see the point in paying $5000 for a scope when both can do the job equally as well. I’d rather spend the extra $3000 on another Gun or ammo or something else. And as I said, if you can’t hit the target with a poor mans scope then a $5000 one ain’t going to help you do it any better.
Last edited:
Dude I'm pretty sure even a tangent theta is 4500 and ziko should be about 3500
Agreed, the Civic and the Ferrari both can get you to and from work. Debate over.
I’m aware. I also don’t change tools like my shoes. I use what works and run it into the ground before it’s replaced.
What? A guy can’t have a side chick or two? I’m even open to a semi-serious relationship with a ZCO. See where it goes.Wait wut? I thought you were all bout those sightrons!?
Proud owner of Bushnell XRSII's. Great scopes for the $$
But I also own a ZCO 527 and ATACR 5-25.....NO COMPARISON. ZCO its not only great glass...But you can't miss the eyebox. Anywhere on the rifle in awkward positions, etc you can see. That to me is what sets the zco apart.....All 3 have great glass and the Bushy's track and are tough.
I can't see buying another one at $3800, but they are pretty sweet. I will probably check out the XRSIII for another rifle.
But I also own a ZCO 527 and ATACR 5-25.....NO COMPARISON. ZCO its not only great glass...But you can't miss the eyebox. Anywhere on the rifle in awkward positions, etc you can see. That to me is what sets the zco apart.....All 3 have great glass and the Bushy's track and are tough.
I can't see buying another one at $3800, but they are pretty sweet. I will probably check out the XRSIII for another rifle.
I picked up a DMR3 and it’s really nice. At 1/4 the price of my ZCO it’s pretty amazing. Less DOF but glass is really good edge to edge. Turrets are nice and the reticle is easy to use.
Same thing I had to say... I am really impressed by the new generation of scopes from Bushnell. Nothing left a lot to be desired... they are just really good.
Yup. Everything looks decent-good under good conditions.
Tough conditions are what separates them.
like comparing 320 v 640 thermals
seems most of the ZCO's on here for sale lately, include a trade for an ATACR 7-35 straight across if they're including a trade
Bushnell makes some good stuff. ZCO makes better stuff.
I have a DMR3 and love it. Sold my DMR2 Pro which was nicem but the DMR3 is better, and the new reticle alot better, Im a fan of the floating dot center. I'm not sure why (yet) Bushnell doesn't have polular reticle options like the H59 and others.. I also just ordered a XRS3 today!! They are in stock
Last edited:
Some of my friends that don’t really hunt or shoot that much will ask me what the difference between a $500 scope vs a $2000+ scope.
I give them the same answer every time.
“Heading back to the truck by about 10-15 minutes”
I give them the same answer every time.
“Heading back to the truck by about 10-15 minutes”
I’ve noticed the same lately. I kind of chalked that up to personal preference, I love my ATACR 7-35, but there’s a small part of me that wished I would have spend a few hundred more to try the ZCO. However, with there being a point of diminishing returns on high end optics, I may have ended up preferring to go back to what I’m familiar with
Most? There is not many for sale, and many of them are our customers who were wanting to sell theirs to upgrade to the new M3X reticle.
The handful for sale here are eclipsed by almost every manufacturer that has scopes for sale. We have more repeat customers with ZCO’s that buy multiples over time when they can afford too. Another point is that ZCO’s hold their value so well that many do not lose very much selling them to replace it with another reticle.
IF.....I was 25 years younger.....back when I was still working, I built a sniper rifle for work. The guy doing the metal work/stock work were the same guys that built my Palma rigs. When it came to scopes, a 'hide member (I think he went by the name jhuskey) talked me into a PM II. Remember now, I'm footing the bill for this 'work' rifle, because my cheap-ass dept would rather buy new chairs for front office staff then equipment for SWAT....anyway, I digress. I ended up buying a PM II and what a scope! Never regretted spending that $$$. Since I'm now 'playing' with my rifles, I can't see the sense in spending ZCO $$$, when a XRS III will fit the bill. I rather have the ZCO, but I am retired. Optics: you get what you pay for.
I have some customers who have a bunch of Nightforce scopes with the same reticle and want them to match and/or there was another that put it on their trainer and wanted it to focus down to 10 meters. Options are good
Bogus. Rarely anyone trades their ZCO on here for an NF. I follow the sales closely. Maybe for more mag but it’s not common. Trading up for the newest reticle is common….with many brands.
I need to trade up! I’m running some 10 year old Bushnells for the most part, mainly cause they just work for me and I got discounts on them. But now I’m wondering. I don’t know how people trade scopes like their shoes!!!
I have had Bushnell elite tactical dmr 2i.
Compared that to the ZCO, it is like night and day.
ZCO is the best you can buy, cost money, but quality does.
Bushnell that is made in Japan, aint bad, but if you got doe for ZCO, you wont regret that buy.
Compared that to the ZCO, it is like night and day.
ZCO is the best you can buy, cost money, but quality does.
Bushnell that is made in Japan, aint bad, but if you got doe for ZCO, you wont regret that buy.
Last edited:
There's No doubt a TT or ZCO are top tier optics, the best you can buy. I really like the Bushnell Elite series because they "work for me" at the budget I want to spend. I'm a recreational shooter, no competition and very little hunting so for me personally, I do not need "an edge" to spend alot more for the best. Some people just can't get over the fact that a Bushnell product could actually be really good and a "great bang for the buck". I have a friend that has a (very well known brand) scope and the company has a (bad) reputation for continuous reliability issues and he always has something negative about the Bushnells. Bushnells are built very solid, have a high reliabilty record and they track, hence Snipers Hide scope tracking results. Some people just think if it says "Bushnell" or "Burris" it just can't be good.
There's nothing wrong with having the best or a decent scope, just depends on that persons budget and eyes. I meet people at the range all the time and some have top tier rigs and some dont, but they do the best what they can do with what they have. Glass is so subject to ones eyes, I can't tell you how many times someone posts that "X" scope has better glass than than "Z" scope and the next post I read says the opposite. WE do, luckily have alot of options to satisfy our budget and likings.
If history is anything to go by ... it will likely be far more reliable.
And reliability should always come before anything else.
Except looks. If it doesn’t look good, it doesn’t feel good, and if you don’t feel good you don’t shoot good, and if you still don’t shoot good, at least you look good which still makes you feel good.
I am going to assume you are talking about Vortex in the first part of the quote and with regards to the last part "Some people just think if it says "Bushnell" or "Burris" it just can't be good." All three of those scope company's make pretty good high-end scopes, but also make absolute junk with their lower end offerings. A Bushnell Banner scope is not even in the same league as a Bushnell Elite such as a Vortex Crossfire and a Vortex Razor Gen 2. I guess they sell enough of the Chinese shit to make up for the tarnished reputation it causes the higher end scopes.
Well don’t forget that the highest volume of scopes is still sold to the average Joe, who might put out $300 on the top end for a 1-9x for their deer rifle that’s pulled out during deer season, is set once for zero and never dialed again.
That’s the real market whether we like it or not.
You wouldn’t believe the people at the range comment about a DMR2
“eww Bushnell, you should’ve got a vortex,” I look over and it’s a crossfire. Lol
Most weekend shooters at my range wouldn’t recognize a good scope. They had a Bushnell banner on a 30-06 that failed and it ruined them ever owning a Bushnell again.
you get what you pay for in optics, I used to own leica, zeiss, schneider glass for photography needs, rifle scope is the same. but most times for 99% of the shooters( be a photo or rifle shooter), the mid range glass is good enough to get the job done. One has to pay 3x or 4x the price to get the additional 10% better optic quality wise. Just look at sport cars, it is like corvette c8 vs ferrari 488. so, if you have got the $, then get the ZCO or TT, but if you have to think about the price at all. get the bushnell.
I run 500$-1500$ optics on several rifles. they’ll do what I need them to do. If needed more performance I would buy it, I could probably buy 2-3 ZCO if I liquidated some of my reloading components if you really wanna know my priorities when it comes to my gun hobby.
Just some of it, not all of it, or even half of it, some of it.
So it’s really not about the money to afford one to me. I just like solid optics like the bushy elites and lots of ammo to shoot.
So I’m at the point, I’ll probably never have to send back the DMR2 for warranty, they have a very good track record for toughness, but I have enough ammo components to burn out several barrels of several cartridges. I’ll probably die of old age and still have plenty. I don’t think the bushy is just as good, I think it’s good enough.
I think people should buy the best they can afford that has a good track record for durability, and then spend as much as you can afford for ammo and components preferably more than for a scope because when shit collapses there’s not going to be any warranty returns to fix junk and there’s not going to be available ammo.
Last edited:
Similar threads
