Rifle Scopes FFP Lightweight hunting scope options/opinions

[Diver160651]

I think I know what you meant, but there are a few issues with what you are postulating here so it is quite misleading.

Generally, both FOV and low end magnification are important. For example, on the 3-24x52 March, I almost only use 3x when I am shooting offhand. For that, lower magnification is important because it looks steadier and helps me see and shoot better.

In your specific examples, there are a few errors. For example, ZCO is a 5-27x, not 4-27x, so in your example of how it is half the FOV of the PST Gen2 at "almost the same magnification". 3x and 5x are not close to the same magnification level (and neither are 3x and 4x for that matter). Magnification is multiplicative, so there difference between 3x and 5x is the same as between 6x and 10x or 12x and 20x, i.e, ~66.67%.

Then there is your example of a 3x scope with 21 ft at 100 yds FOV. That's just nonsense. I am not aware of any high quality scope with FOV that narrow. Maybe there is some very long eyerelief design that is like that, but I can't recall one offhand.

Same strawman argument with your example of a 6x scope with 35 ft at 100yard FOV. I am not aware of any conventional riflescope designs with FOV like that. To get that kind of FOV with typical eye relief of around 3.5", you would have to have an eyepiece of around 3 inches in diameter.

The concept you seem to be trying to convey is something called Apparent FOV, which is simply real FOV multiplied by magnification.

When people talk about eyepiece having certain FOV, like the March 5-42x mentioned earlier having 26 degree FOV, that is what they mean. 26 degree is pretty much the highest I have seen yet with conventional scopes and to go higher you will either end up having a larger eyepiece or short eye relief. There is no free lunch.

I posted a video on this subject a few days ago:


ILya

The point of the illustrations was only to show the difference at whatever magnification FOV plays ( you pick the number- I just used 3x to fit the native image and the expanded image in the graphic. It was not in any way tied to a particular scope- the illustrations are correct.

I fully understand there is not a "free lunch." So maybe, we do indeed give up something on our wish list, maybe it magnification, maybe it's the weight. But the emphasis on FOV is downplayed too much in the reviews when discussing lower power scopes.

Yes, I also understand that 3x is much less than 4x; yes, my 3x vs. 6x illustration could have been made more transparent, but I thought I was evident with the various qualifiers I included. Maybe I should have added some California disclaimer to the images emphasizing that I was not directly comparing any particular scopes and that no scopes were harmed in the creation of the illustrations. Shit, I thought I basically said all that a couple of times in my post.

To that point and your math: I could have used actual scopes and stepped out the PST from 41.2' to 5.25x where it is 35.09' and pain mistakenly drawn two relative magnification rings showing that a scope X at 3x has the same relative FOV as Z scope does at over 5x. But what is the point, the point solely is to show how magnification plays a separate role (albite tied together) than FOV to the shooter's needs. Think less engineer and more 5th grader as that is how simple I intended the illustrations to read. When the NRL22 boom first hit, I'd go to one or two a month and was horrified at some of the scope purchases people ended up making; in many cases, it was like looking through a straw. They didn't pay attention to the FOV, until they struggled a 25-40yards trying to find targets quickly.

Repeating, I was not saying that any scope is better than another; my point of using my ZCO was to show that 21' is NOT tremendous, nor is the weight great. Oh, 21' for a 5x scope (sorry for the typo) is not all that great, anyway, but I do like my scope for the purpose (PRS/NRL). My point for showing the lovely 5HD was to illustrate that it was very tight as a crossover scope. It is a great scope, and I'd use it on my Elk gun, but it didn't check the FOV box for a scope that I might hunt both pigs and Elk, along with the PST just to show that wide FOV in a cross over scope is affordable.

It doesn't sound like you hunt a lot; the widest FOV (lowest mag) is what I use if I have concerns that I might inadvertently jump something, especially with it on the move. 3x is not what I use off-hand at a match; it's more like 5-8 for me, and for PRS/NRL, I am 12-15. But the same thing holds true, a scope that is wide at 15, it is easier to use than a tight scope, or I need to creep down a bit in power. I use scopes a lot but am no way a "scope reviewer," that's not my interest, nor am I an optical engineer. But, my advice to reviewers and manufacturers in the lower power (not LPO) crossover space to pay more attention to FOV is a recommendation that has merit.

The funny part is, I have been considering the March for my ElK/Pig gun, I am ok with 35' but would be happier with less top magnification and a tiny bit bigger ocular and the few ounces it might bring if it tipped 40.'

Edited to add: koshkin Just watched and I like your video. This is precisely the kind of attention we need to put more front and center.

 

[ofelas]

Interesting.

Offhand, standing up,/while I’m walking, for yappy trotters upto 40yds & moose/big bears upto 75yds, my scope stays on 3x.

I actually don’t remember what my FOV numbers are, I just use what mag is quickest for the occasion.

Edit - I don't look at the numbers on the mag ring while I'm hunting.

 

[Diver160651]

Interesting.

Offhand, standing up,/while I’m walking, for yappy trotters upto 40yds & moose/big bears upto 75yds, my scope stays on 3x.

I actually don’t remember what my FOV numbers are, I just use what mag is quickest for the occasion.

I hear you - I always am on the lowest power when walking. It is true, I have no idea what the FOV is at the time. But, before I spend another 2-4k on a scope only to sell it later, you bet I am doing some digging and yapping first.

 

[ofelas]

I'm a cheapskate with a beater scope that's over a decade old.

I took a looksie through a 3-15 TT a few weeks back after ILya told me about them.

Extremely impressive; if I was in the market, that would be the scope I'd buy - if I hadn't spent all my change on various rings/mounts these past few weeks.

 

[Glassaholic]

Diver, I do try to focus on FOV in many of my reviews and have been preaching the same thing for a quite a while and I tend to agree with you, that having a scope with greater FOV is going to be better for scanning and looking for things - if you can't see it you can't hit it. In my upcoming review of the March 5-42 vs the Schmidt 5-45 I will have a section on FOV because that's one of the things I focused on quite a bit.

 

[Birddog6424]

Diver, I do try to focus on FOV in many of my reviews and have been preaching the same thing for a quite a while and I tend to agree with you, that having a scope with greater FOV is going to be better for scanning and looking for things - if you can't see it you can't hit it. In my upcoming review of the March 5-42 vs the Schmidt 5-45 I will have a section on FOV because that's one of the things I focused on quite a bit.

After spending so much time behind XTRIIs for the last 5 years in hunting and competition, I'm still amazed when I get behind the XTRIII. Great FOV is truly an amazing feature with measurable positive impact on the scope usage.

In PRS I've been able to run higher magnifications due to the greater FOV. It's very noticeable.

People are catching on. I read a lot of positive feedback on the XTRIII. It has its place as a worthy consideration in a discussion of this nature.

 

[koshkin]

The point of the illustrations was only to show the difference at whatever magnification FOV plays ( you pick the number- I just used 3x to fit the native image and the expanded image in the graphic. It was not in any way tied to a particular scope- the illustrations are correct.

I fully understand there is not a "free lunch." So maybe, we do indeed give up something on our wish list, maybe it magnification, maybe it's the weight. But the emphasis on FOV is downplayed too much in the reviews when discussing lower power scopes.

Yes, I also understand that 3x is much less than 4x; yes, my 3x vs. 6x illustration could have been made more transparent, but I thought I was evident with the various qualifiers I included. Maybe I should have added some California disclaimer to the images emphasizing that I was not directly comparing any particular scopes and that no scopes were harmed in the creation of the illustrations. Shit, I thought I basically said all that a couple of times in my post.

To that point and your math: I could have used actual scopes and stepped out the PST from 41.2' to 5.25x where it is 35.09' and pain mistakenly drawn two relative magnification rings showing that a scope X at 3x has the same relative FOV as Z scope does at over 5x. But what is the point, the point solely is to show how magnification plays a separate role (albite tied together) than FOV to the shooter's needs. Think less engineer and more 5th grader as that is how simple I intended the illustrations to read. When the NRL22 boom first hit, I'd go to one or two a month and was horrified at some of the scope purchases people ended up making; in many cases, it was like looking through a straw. They didn't pay attention to the FOV, until they struggled a 25-40yards trying to find targets quickly.

Repeating, I was not saying that any scope is better than another; my point of using my ZCO was to show that 21' is NOT tremendous, nor is the weight great. Oh, 21' for a 5x scope (sorry for the typo) is not all that great, anyway, but I do like my scope for the purpose (PRS/NRL). My point for showing the lovely 5HD was to illustrate that it was very tight as a crossover scope. It is a great scope, and I'd use it on my Elk gun, but it didn't check the FOV box for a scope that I might hunt both pigs and Elk, along with the PST just to show that wide FOV in a cross over scope is affordable.

It doesn't sound like you hunt a lot; the widest FOV (lowest mag) is what I use if I have concerns that I might inadvertently jump something, especially with it on the move. 3x is not what I use off-hand at a match; it's more like 5-8 for me, and for PRS/NRL, I am 12-15. But the same thing holds true, a scope that is wide at 15, it is easier to use than a tight scope, or I need to creep down a bit in power. I use scopes a lot but am no way a "scope reviewer," that's not my interest, nor am I an optical engineer. But, my advice to reviewers and manufacturers in the lower power (not LPO) crossover space to pay more attention to FOV is a recommendation that has merit.

The funny part is, I have been considering the March for my ElK/Pig gun, I am ok with 35' but would be happier with less top magnification and a tiny bit bigger ocular and the few ounces it might bring if it tipped 40.'

Edited to add: koshkin Just watched and I like your video. This is precisely the kind of attention we need to put more front and center.

Not sure what California disclaimer is supposed to be. I think you are using a whole series of strawman arguments, so I guess I really do not understand what you are getting at.

If you are claiming that noone pays attention to FOV, I think all of the serious reviewers do. I know Bill does and so does BigJimFish (there is a reason I am comfortable putting their work on my website; I may disagree with the here and there, but their stuff is always thought through).

I always list FOVs and add FOVs at the same magnification in every spec table, so that people can compare apples to apples. I have been doing it this way for at least a decade and probably longer. Here is the latest example:

Element Optics Nexus 5-20×50 » OpticsThoughts

If you look at the spec table, notice that I list the FOV at 10x for every scope. That is at real 10x magnification, not at whatever is marked as 10x. That will directly correlate to apparent FOV.

I don't think anyone disagrees that FOV is important. It comes up in every conversation on crossover scopes I can think of.

However, decoupling FOV from magnification is not productive, because then you are decoupling eyepiece size which feeds into overall bulk of the scope. That is particularly important for crossover scopes. Everything is a compromise and we can have a nice discussion on what is more important for different applications, but if you are throwing around hypothetical configurations that do not exist, then do not omit what you would be sacrificing .

In general, I do agree that apparent FOV does not get the attention it deserves with riflescopes (if that is the point you are making), which is why I made that video and I have some ideas on how to illustrate that better in future videos. However, FOV does get discussed a lot.

Lastly, keep in mind that the way magnification rings are engraved is somewhat arbitrary.

Here are some measurements as a function of the magnification setting:

ILya

 

[Diver160651]

Not sure what California disclaimer is supposed to be. I think you are using a whole series of strawman arguments, so I guess I really do not understand what you are getting at.

If you are claiming that noone pays attention to FOV, I think all of the serious reviewers do. I know Bill does and so does BigJimFish (there is a reason I am comfortable putting their work on my website; I may disagree with the here and there, but their stuff is always thought through).

I always list FOVs and add FOVs at the same magnification in every spec table, so that people can compare apples to apples. I have been doing it this way for at least a decade and probably longer. Here is the latest example:

Element Optics Nexus 5-20×50 » OpticsThoughts

If you look at the spec table, notice that I list the FOV at 10x for every scope. That is at real 10x magnification, not at whatever is marked as 10x. That will directly correlate to apparent FOV.

I don't think anyone disagrees that FOV is important. It comes up in every conversation on crossover scopes I can think of.

However, decoupling FOV from magnification is not productive, because then you are decoupling eyepiece size which feeds into overall bulk of the scope. That is particularly important for crossover scopes. Everything is a compromise and we can have a nice discussion on what is more important for different applications, but if you are throwing around hypothetical configurations that do not exist, then do not omit what you would be sacrificing .

In general, I do agree that apparent FOV does not get the attention it deserves with riflescopes (if that is the point you are making), which is why I made that video and I have some ideas on how to illustrate that better in future videos. However, FOV does get discussed a lot.

Lastly, keep in mind that the way magnification rings are engraved is somewhat arbitrary.

Here are some measurements as a function of the magnification setting:
View attachment 7350060

ILya

All good, FYI I pay zero attention to the mag rings. My example was angular.

“Strawman arguments?” I am not arguing with anyone. I illustrated visually how various FOVs can actually appear through a scope vs. a spec sheet or graph. I believe it is as important if not more so, than selecting the quality of the glass etc. in a relatively low power scope hunting scope.

It might be worth noting that when I say scope reviewers, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people reviewing scopes and hunting paying no attention to FOV and that crowed as a whole is what I am talking about - not you. 3x means nothing to me, if it is like my old bb-gun scope; yet I’ll see a hunter using that same exact scope saying he needs 3x to hunt -lol

I would love to see a good decision tree for buying a scope with features assigned a weighted value.

Of course for a lower power hunting scope the FOV would need to have more value assign to it over a PRS or long range hunting scope -

edited to add: again that March scope is on my short list.

To bad we couldn’t get them at one of our matches -

 

[Diver160651]

After spending so much time behind XTRIIs for the last 5 years in hunting and competition, I'm still amazed when I get behind the XTRIII. Great FOV is truly an amazing feature with measurable positive impact on the scope usage.

In PRS I've been able to run higher magnifications due to the greater FOV. It's very noticeable.

People are catching on. I read a lot of positive feedback on the XTRIII. It has its place as a worthy consideration in a discussion of this nature.

I’d like to get behind the 3.3-18 SCR2 at 29oz

edited to add: I’ve won a few Burris certs over time, that I had given to others, wish I had one now -

 

[Birddog6424]

I really like the 18x XTR3. It's a very good optic.

If I were looking for a crossover I would pick that up with an SCR reticle and run with it. I'll hunt with it this fall with my SCR2. But the more basic reticle is better suited for hunting.

 

[Diver160651]

I really like the 18x XTR3. It's a very good optic.

If I were looking for a crossover I would pick that up with an SCR reticle and run with it. I'll hunt with it this fall with my SCR2. But the more basic reticle is better suited for hunting.

I find that once in that 3-5 range, I’ll turn on day bright illumination and use it just like a duplex. The Trees on most scopes melt away. There are no real holds up close as kill zone, let say is 6” that just about 1.7 mills @ 100! But running it out, let’s say 600 or so gives us time to dial up and use the same skill set, maybe even more cautiously than you’d use at a match as that same target is < a minute/.3mils. Anyway, My obtuse point is that I don’t find Christmas trees distracting when hunting, I have other optics to spot through

Its a great time to be a consumer.

 

[koshkin]

I find that once in that 3-5 range, I’ll turn on day bright illumination and use it just like a duplex. The Trees on most scopes melt away. There are no real holds up close as kill zone, let say is 6” that just about 1.7 mills @ 100! But running it out, let’s say 600 or so gives us time to dial up and use the same skill set, maybe even more cautiously than you’d use at a match as that same target is < a minute/.3mils. Anyway, My obtuse point is that I don’t find Christmas trees distracting when hunting, I have other optics to spot through

Its a great time to be a consumer.

XTR 3 is not yet available with the illuminated reticle. Hopefully, this year. That's the reason I have not tested one. I am waiting for the illuminated version.

ILya

 

[CBDR]

I bought a Kahles 3-18-50 for my Sig Cross when it comes in

She is the sweet spot.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

XTR 3 is not yet available with the illuminated reticle. Hopefully, this year. That's the reason I have not tested one. I am waiting for the illuminated version.

ILya

@koshkin what is it about scope design that makes some images appear to float in space and others to give the appearance of looking through a tube?

I have an older, less expensive, lower IQ Leupy 2.5-8x36 (SFP) on a hunting rifle that provides a better “heads up display” floating image than my newer SHV F1 on another hunting rifle, which is a more modern scope but unfortunately provides the distracting thick ring around the image, even on lowest magnification. I find this to be a distraction if I’m scanning an area. I am going to purchase a low to mid-range power mil/mil FFP lightweight scope soon for a hunting/crossover range rifle and this floating image feature, along with illumination, is the most important feature to me for sheer speed of engagement for hunting at short ranges.

Also, are the latest LPVO’s better in this regard than the current 3-15/18’s and 4-20’s when used on 3-4x magnification? I am not interested in 1x magnification for this build, and 10x would suffice for range work.

 

[Diver160651]

@koshkin above is another example of a mfg marketing a scope as a crossover in a relatively low power to hunters. The widest FOV is something around 25’/100. Why would someone purchase that over some of the 3-15s with better FOV or even some of the 5-25s with about the same FOV?

None of my comments and concerns are directed at your reviews - but as an industry we need to do better at letting people know what they are giving up. I really think scopes need something visual to show the difference between 40/35/30/25FOVs instead of the numbers just listed on their website.

 

[koshkin]

@koshkin what is it about scope design that makes some images appear to float in space and others to give the appearance of looking through a tube?

I have an older, less expensive, lower IQ Leupy 2.5-8x36 (SFP) on a hunting rifle that provides a better “heads up display” floating image than my newer SHV F1 on another hunting rifle, which is a more modern scope but unfortunately provides the distracting thick ring around the image, even on lowest magnification. I find this to be a distraction if I’m scanning an area. I am going to purchase a low to mid-range power mil/mil FFP lightweight scope soon for a hunting/crossover range rifle and this floating image feature, along with illumination, is the most important feature to me for sheer speed of engagement for hunting at short ranges.

Also, are the latest LPVO’s better in this regard than the current 3-15/18’s and 4-20’s when used on 3-4x magnification? I am not interested in 1x magnification for this build, and 10x would suffice for range work.

It comes down to eyepiece design. Generally, traditional fine thread eyepeice is easier to design so that it floats in front of you, but it is clearly doable with Euro style eyepieces too.

LPVOs are not different from other scopes in this regard: it comes down to the eyepiece design. Some are better than others. For example Vortex Razor Gen 3 1-10x24 is very good at this.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

@koshkin above is another example of a mfg marketing a scope as a crossover in a relatively low power to hunters. The widest FOV is something around 25’/100. Why would someone purchase that over some of the 3-15s with better FOV or even some of the 5-25s with about the same FOV?

None of my comments and concerns are directed at your reviews - but as an industry we need to do better at letting people know what they are giving up. I really think scopes need something visual to show the difference between 40/35/30/25FOVs instead of the numbers just listed on their website.

Which specific scopes are you referring to? SHV?

Perhaps, for other people, FOV is less critical than it is for you. Maybe they hunt differently. For example, if you are sitting in a blind in Texas waiting for pigs with the feeder 150 yards from you, low mag FOV is not a major concern. As far as 5-25x scopes go, those are usually notably bigger and heavier. Everyone makes this compromise in a different way.

Either way, manufacturers are there to sell you stuff, so they will market in whichever way they think will sell the most scopes. It is the consumer's job to figure out whether it fits what they need to do.

In the grand scheme of things, if optics manufacturers marketing departments were any sort of trustworthy and authoritative, there would not be a need for people like me, right?

As far SHV goes, while it is nicely robust scope, I overall find it quite underwhelming, FOV being one of the reasons for that. In general, I can't recall recommending any Nightforce cheaper than the ATACR since I think there are usually better options for the money when it comes other Nightforce scopes. It is a testament to the effectiveness of Nightforce's marketing department that they sell as well as they do. All the different stunts they do with frozen scopes and all that are kinda asinine, but they clearly garner attention. ATACRs are very nice though, especially since they introduced Mil-XT.

ILya

 

[brentwinkey]

Thanks for all the advice. Got a 3-24x52 March for my hunting rig. Just need to get it mounted now and send some rds down range!

 

[jarredsc]

Leupold Mark 5 3.5-18 x44

 

[Moose]

Thanks for all the advice. Got a 3-24x52 March for my hunting rig. Just need to get it mounted now and send some rds down range!

If you get a chance post some pics and let us know how you like the scope.

 

[brentwinkey]

If you get a chance post some pics and let us know how you like the scope.

 

[brentwinkey]

Finally got it setup. Love the glass. Love the center dot and simple reticle for hunting. Simple zero stop setup. Love that the reticle is usable all thru the mag range specifically being able to see the center dot even at 3 power for those possible snap shots that can happen while hunting. If I had any negatives on it it would be the eye box and parallax are touchy at max end of mag range but that's really being picky

 

[ofelas]

Sound move for a nice rig; I assume you picked the FML-1 reticle?

Finally got it setup. Love the glass. Love the center dot and simple reticle for hunting. Simple zero stop setup. Love that the reticle is usable all thru the mag range specifically being able to see the center dot even at 3 power for those possible snap shots that can happen while hunting. If I had any negatives on it it would be the eye box and parallax are touchy at max end of mag range but that's really being picky

 

[brentwinkey]

Sound move for a nice rig; I assume you picked the FML-1 reticle?

Yesir FML-1 reticle. I think I made a good choice. With all the info from other members it made the choice pretty easy after reading into it. Come October it'll be in SD with me on an antelope hunt. Can't wait!

 

[koshkin]

Yesir FML-1 reticle. I think I made a good choice. With all the info from other members it made the choice pretty easy after reading into it. Come October it'll be in SD with me on an antelope hunt. Can't wait!

That's a good choice.

 

[Backspace]

In a similar situation to the OP. Looking to get some glass for my hunting rig. Must haves are ffp, mil reticle/reliable mil dialable, and excellent bright glass. Dont really need much more than 15 or 16x but wouldn't turn my nose up at the extra on the top end. Would like to have a good FOV on the bottom end, so figuring on about 3-4x on the low end. My research leads me to think that the swaro and leica might be out with the above requirements. Zeiss might be an option but not sure, might need to research more. After all the reading it looks like it would come down to the S&B 4-16 T96 Polar, TT 3-15, March 3-24 (52 preferred) for lighter weight options (had a Vortex Razor AMG and wasnt a fan). Maybe sacrifice some on the weight and step up to a 4-16 ultra bright, 3-20 PMii (non ultra short, had a the 3-20 and 5-20 US and wasnt a fan), or a 4-20 ZCO. So, im reaching out to the glass experts who have some experience with some of these for some direction. If i cant make a decision i can always fall back to my 4-16 ATACR or 4-32 NX8.

 

[CSTactical]

In a similar situation to the OP. Looking to get some glass for my hunting rig. Must haves are ffp, mil reticle/reliable mil dialable, and excellent bright glass. Dont really need much more than 15 or 16x but wouldn't turn my nose up at the extra on the top end. Would like to have a good FOV on the bottom end, so figuring on about 3-4x on the low end. My research leads me to think that the swaro and leica might be out with the above requirements. Zeiss might be an option but not sure, might need to research more. After all the reading it looks like it would come down to the S&B 4-16 T96 Polar, TT 3-15, March 3-24 (52 preferred) for lighter weight options (had a Vortex Razor AMG and wasnt a fan). Maybe sacrifice some on the weight and step up to a 4-16 ultra bright, 3-20 PMii (non ultra short, had a the 3-20 and 5-20 US and wasnt a fan), or a 4-20 ZCO. So, im reaching out to the glass experts who have some experience with some of these for some direction. If i cant make a decision i can always fall back to my 4-16 ATACR or 4-32 NX8.

Give us a call at 916-670-1103 and we can help guide you to the correct choice

 

[Painless300]

In a similar situation to the OP. Looking to get some glass for my hunting rig. Must haves are ffp, mil reticle/reliable mil dialable, and excellent bright glass. Dont really need much more than 15 or 16x but wouldn't turn my nose up at the extra on the top end. Would like to have a good FOV on the bottom end, so figuring on about 3-4x on the low end. My research leads me to think that the swaro and leica might be out with the above requirements. Zeiss might be an option but not sure, might need to research more. After all the reading it looks like it would come down to the S&B 4-16 T96 Polar, TT 3-15, March 3-24 (52 preferred) for lighter weight options (had a Vortex Razor AMG and wasnt a fan). Maybe sacrifice some on the weight and step up to a 4-16 ultra bright, 3-20 PMii (non ultra short, had a the 3-20 and 5-20 US and wasnt a fan), or a 4-20 ZCO. So, im reaching out to the glass experts who have some experience with some of these for some direction. If i cant make a decision i can always fall back to my 4-16 ATACR or 4-32 NX8.

I've been down this road and have had most of the shorty scopes as I was running a 16" Desert tech and didn't want gas blasting my glass. The two common issue had with S&B US, Khales 3-18 and MK5 are parallax is not as forgiving as your full length scopes and CA. I know CA does not bother some people but I hate it. The only short scope that I did not experience the CA is the ZCO 4-20. I hate the S&B turrets, clicks way to close together, and was just underwhelmed over all with the MK5, given its not a $3000 scope.
After a lot of trading and buying I got the TT 3-15M, this is one amazing pc of glass. No CA, very forgiving parallax, glass has edge to edge clarity, awesome turrets (11 Mils per Rev) heavy clicks and have never had them turn on me and its 27oz. Its just the perfect hunting scope if you want FFP. My second choice is the ZCO its just a little heavier but a very solid choice. If I was on a budget the MK5 would be a solid choice as did everything well other than what I stated above, tracking, illumination, turrets were very acceptable, reticle mehhh.
Good luck with your decision!

 

[Glassaholic]

I've been down this road and have had most of the shorty scopes as I was running a 16" Desert tech and didn't want gas blasting my glass. The two common issue had with S&B US, Khales 3-18 and MK5 are parallax is not as forgiving as your full length scopes and CA. I know CA does not bother some people but I hate it. The only short scope that I did not experience the CA is the ZCO 4-20. I hate the S&B turrets, clicks way to close together, and was just underwhelmed over all with the MK5, given its not a $3000 scope.
After a lot of trading and buying I got the TT 3-15M, this is one amazing pc of glass. No CA, very forgiving parallax, glass has edge to edge clarity, awesome turrets (11 Mils per Rev) heavy clicks and have never had them turn on me and its 27oz. Its just the perfect hunting scope if you want FFP. My second choice is the ZCO its just a little heavier but a very solid choice. If I was on a budget the MK5 would be a solid choice as did everything well other than what I stated above, tracking, illumination, turrets were very acceptable, reticle mehhh.
Good luck with your decision! View attachment 7413694

Nice rig Painless! Having had two Premier LT 3-15's (the older sister to the TT315M) I still have a fondness for this design and with TT turrets, simply hard to beat especially if you want a scope under 30oz. I now have the ZCO 4-20 that you mention and it is a heavier scope for it's size but optics are superb. For me personally, I've come to appreciate the extra magnification on the top end of a 4-20 more than I miss the reduced FOV on the bottom end, but 39' FOV vs 27' FOV is significant so if you find yourself needing the enormous FOV of the TT at 3x then I would steer anyone in that direction.

 

[Painless300]

Nice rig Painless! Having had two Premier LT 3-15's (the older sister to the TT315M) I still have a fondness for this design and with TT turrets, simply hard to beat especially if you want a scope under 30oz. I now have the ZCO 4-20 that you mention and it is a heavier scope for it's size but optics are superb. For me personally, I've come to appreciate the extra magnification on the top end of a 4-20 more than I miss the reduced FOV on the bottom end, but 39' FOV vs 27' FOV is significant so if you find yourself needing the enormous FOV of the TT at 3x then I would steer anyone in that direction.

Thanks WJM, l Should have mentioned the FOV differences as that should not be overlooked In hunting situations, good catch thanks for sddi g to the comments I should have made. Price is about a wash on the ZCO 4-20 vs TT 3-15M, ZCO does come up way more often on the PX than the TT so you could get it at little discount if you don’t mind buying used.

 

[NewsShooter]

For hunting, I've been using a Bushnell LRHS 4.5-18. It weighs 26 oz. I think that's comparable to the other scopes named.

I have something similar with the G2H reticle, need to pick up another one of these days.

 

[brentwinkey]

Just out of curiosity how useable is the reticle on a TT3-15 on 3 power. I was pleasantly surprised on the 3-24 march that it was very usable if the situation arises.

 

[koshkin]

Just out of curiosity how useable is the reticle on a TT3-15 on 3 power. I was pleasantly surprised on the 3-24 march that it was very usable if the situation arises.

It is fairly thin, but I do not have any issues with it. In low light it definitely needs illumination.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

Just out of curiosity how useable is the reticle on a TT3-15 on 3 power. I was pleasantly surprised on the 3-24 march that it was very usable if the situation arises.

I had both the mildot and the Gen 2XR reticles in mine and the mildot was better with regard to thickness but as ILya mention's I did not feel handicapped with the Gen 2XR either, yes it was light but I was still able to pick up center. Also, having had a couple March 3-24's they are also very nice scopes and like you, I found the FML-1 to be surprisingly usable at 3x. Scopes are tools, and like any tool we need to learn and understand its benefits and limitations, no scope is perfect and we'll always be making compromises of some sort. Choose the tool you think will be best for your situation and learn how to use it and you'll be happy with it even when others might hate it.

 

[ofelas]

That FML-1 is sweet, likely the nicest one I've seen yet, if I absolutely had to fork out the pennies under the mattress for a new scope.

It's like the reticle designers knew what they were doing or something.

 

[brentwinkey]

Well the March setup worked beautiful in SD. Sold the rifle tho and working on a lighter weight setup lol. Always can do better/lighter/faster. Thanks for everyone's input. Brent

 

[Moose]

I've been down this road and have had most of the shorty scopes as I was running a 16" Desert tech and didn't want gas blasting my glass. The two common issue had with S&B US, Khales 3-18 and MK5 are parallax is not as forgiving as your full length scopes and CA. I know CA does not bother some people but I hate it. The only short scope that I did not experience the CA is the ZCO 4-20. I hate the S&B turrets, clicks way to close together, and was just underwhelmed over all with the MK5, given its not a $3000 scope.
After a lot of trading and buying I got the TT 3-15M, this is one amazing pc of glass. No CA, very forgiving parallax, glass has edge to edge clarity, awesome turrets (11 Mils per Rev) heavy clicks and have never had them turn on me and its 27oz. Its just the perfect hunting scope if you want FFP. My second choice is the ZCO its just a little heavier but a very solid choice. If I was on a budget the MK5 would be a solid choice as did everything well other than what I stated above, tracking, illumination, turrets were very acceptable, reticle mehhh.
Good luck with your decision! View attachment 7413694

That setup is very nice and I also own the TT315m and ZC 4x20 and they by far are my favorite scopes.They both just make my shooting experience so much nicer.

 

[brentwinkey]

That setup is very nice and I also own the TT315m and ZC 4x20 and they by far are my favorite scopes.They both just make my shooting experience so much nicer.

I have 3 5-27 zcomps for my comp rifles but they are a bit chunky for a hunting rifle. Definitely like my zcomps