Alright, I know the optics questions get asked all the freaking time but I'm truly split here and was hoping for a push in either direction. I'm saving up for my next optic and narrowed it down to these two. PRS and general plinking to 1200yds. Both the zco reticle and the mil-c are in my opinion perfect reticles. I dig em both but can't decide. Any input would be awesome.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes IATACR 7-35 OR Zero Compromise
- Thread starter A.Bennett
- Start date
Both great choices. Do you want the extra power of the NF ? Maybe let that be your deciding factor. Or the fact that NF is a more established and secure company (at this point).
If you are not worried about longevity of ZCO and feel they will be around for the long haul, then go that route.
Splitting hairs as far as the actual scope goes in relation to quality I believe. I think the ZCO looks incredible, but sometime it's hard to drop that much coin on something that just came out, coupled with being a new company too.
Price point of the Vortex Gen II is hard to pass right now IMHO, then you have PMII's that are in the same boat.
Great time for scope buyers with a stupid amount of quality optics from mutiple companies. Whatever you do, purchase from one of the many great vendors here.
If you are not worried about longevity of ZCO and feel they will be around for the long haul, then go that route.
Splitting hairs as far as the actual scope goes in relation to quality I believe. I think the ZCO looks incredible, but sometime it's hard to drop that much coin on something that just came out, coupled with being a new company too.
Price point of the Vortex Gen II is hard to pass right now IMHO, then you have PMII's that are in the same boat.
Great time for scope buyers with a stupid amount of quality optics from mutiple companies. Whatever you do, purchase from one of the many great vendors here.
I dont necessarily need the power. I just heard that for whatever reason the 7-35 has better glass. I rarely if ever go over 18 power unless I'm shooting 100ys groups. During matches I don't go over 12x. I haven't had any issues or complaints with my razor either. I just figured if imma dump all this money, might as well try something new.
I just bought a 7-35. From what I’ve seen of the ZCO (personally and through the opinions of several friends) and the price they are at I’d personally choose the 7-35 or splurge for a TT. Of course this is all relative to the price you pay. I just picked up a used 7-35 mil c for 2800. Doubt you’ll find many used ZCO at a bargain. As stated above best bang for your buck right now is the PM2 used on the exchange.
Have owned a 7-35, and currently own a couple zcomps.
Answer these questions and I’ll can tell you which one you’ll probably like more:
Which reticle do you like more:
Mil-c
Mil-xt
H59
Tremor 3
Mpct1
Mpct2
If you like multiple reticles, just list them
Do you prefer ocular moving or not moving with the magnification ring?
Do you need 10m parallax or is 25m fine?
Prefer low profile or high profile turrets?
Prefer locking turrets?
Does auto off illumination matter to you?
Answer these questions and I’ll can tell you which one you’ll probably like more:
Which reticle do you like more:
Mil-c
Mil-xt
H59
Tremor 3
Mpct1
Mpct2
If you like multiple reticles, just list them
Do you prefer ocular moving or not moving with the magnification ring?
Do you need 10m parallax or is 25m fine?
Prefer low profile or high profile turrets?
Prefer locking turrets?
Does auto off illumination matter to you?
No budget for all that lmao. I'm still figuring out how to pull one off without the wife knowing ?I say both
Parallax I'm indifferent. I'll never bring it in that close, I'm not a fan of the ocular peice moving but it's not a deal breaker. I know the nightforce does that. I've never used illumination before. Don't see myself using it anytime soon. The mpct 2 and the milr are by far my favorite. I like the .2 holds and how open the milr is. But I think the mpct2 is the best Xmas tree style. That's why I'm torn is bc I dig both reticles. Can't stand the milxt or horus anything. Way too busy for me. I like the locking turrets on my razor but only use it when it's in the gun case. I'm not sure about the turrets. My only real experience in matches is with the gen 2 razor. And those turrets don't bother me.
I’d probably lean towards the zcomp then.
The ergonomics are the best I’ve seen. The locking turrets are nice to have, and the ocular doesn’t move.
If saving $800 is of importance, a used 7-35 for $2800 is g2g.
But if the $3600 for zcomp doesn’t bother you, it’s tough to beat considering your preferences.
The ergonomics are the best I’ve seen. The locking turrets are nice to have, and the ocular doesn’t move.
If saving $800 is of importance, a used 7-35 for $2800 is g2g.
But if the $3600 for zcomp doesn’t bother you, it’s tough to beat considering your preferences.
This batch of optics are the only one that had me toying with the decision to order my TT. I ultimetly ordered the TT but the ZCO and NF were the hardest for me to not overlook. My choice probably would’ve been ZCO!
How old are you? I ask because the clicks are close together, and the markings are small on the ZCO. That being said, probably THE best reticle on the market. I have a friend who bought the new Kahles 5-25 last year in July. Next time I saw him at a match a month later he had the NF 7-35, because he could read the turrets.
This game is crazy expensive. At this point the price isn't necessarily what I'm looking for. I'm not willing to drop TT money but I don't mind saving up. This is for my backup rifle mostly. So not a huge rush.
I'm 28. With newly corrected vision lol. I played with the zco next to a ATACR last weekend. That's why it's between these two. Love the reticles and love the features. I'm leaning zco but it is a new company and I don't want to spend over 3k being a guinea pig. I plan on buying late this year so I'm just in research mode. While I decide EXACTLY what I want.
If you are looking at a zco, you can get a TT around that price or not too much more (unless h59).
I’d pick whichever reticle you like best and roll with it if cost isn’t a factor.
I have two zcomps. Haven’t run the mpct2 with updated turrets in rifle yet. But my mpct1 with original turrets has been in two matches (one was RO brawl) and through a two day course at RO. It has been tossed around a bit and soaking wet in rain.
Zero issues thus far.
Zero issues thus far.
Hell, if your gonna drop 3600 bucks on a ZCO, why not put about 450 more dollars into it and get the best optic on the market, TT 5-25 gen3XR.... TT has amazing turrets and glass, and now with the new reticle, I would love to get back into one myself.. I have the 7-35 NF and it is no slouch, great optic with nice turrets and glass as well.. I really like my NF..
Depends on reticle preference.
Large center dot and dots on mils ain’t for everyone unfortunately.
The center dot covers over half of a 2” kyl at 450yd.
It really cracks me up so few consider FOV and focus so flipping much on Magnification..
I agree, everyone has their own likes and dislikes and preferences. I would have liked a smaller dot also but I could live with it. TT turrets are second to none....
Yeah like what’s the widest field of view at the moment in a high end optic you’d think would drive way more purchases than it does.
It’s was so great on the 624 I wonder how they missed a beat on the updated version.
TT is the ultimate dream of course but it’s out of range for a while haha
I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head but I’ve spent a good deal of time comparing various scopes. When you get behind the kahles you notice the small field of view almost immediately. It’s dwarfed by the Schmidt NF razor and others.
A quick google search will produce any FOV stats you’re looking for.
TT and Minox are the same at 7.6M-1.6M@100M (found a source that says 22.8ft-4.8ft@100yards).
S&B PMII is 5.3M-1.5M@100M (found a source that says 17.38ft-4.92ft@100yds).
ZCO is 21ft-4.5ft@100yds.
Thanks OE800. Note that that figure for the ZCO is likely at 27x not 25 like the rest.
The kahles is listed as 21.7-4.4ft/100yards. The Schmidt is listed as 1.5m. I compared my Schmidt and kahles the other day side by side for field of view and there’s quite a significant difference.
The kahles is listed as 21.7-4.4ft/100yards. The Schmidt is listed as 1.5m. I compared my Schmidt and kahles the other day side by side for field of view and there’s quite a significant difference.
Last edited:
Here you go: Sometimes we should should have more factual based information.
The K525 was built for the PRS crowed were most are shooting between 10-15x. I have owned every scope I listed except the ZCO (on order) & TT. But If you look at the numbers it is fairly irresponsible to say, the FOV is bad or "It’s awful compared to the others."
My original point was that FOV is important, Especially when tossing in the ATCAR 7-35. It is like looking thru a straw at 10x and 15x if you shoot any precision tactical like PRS/NRL.
edited again to change the 15.8' FOV @100Y to 15.89' splitting hairs is NOT relevant in anyway. The chart is meant to help with the big picture when looking at the ZCO vrs the Atacr 7-35
Last edited:
This chart is wrong. I had a Schmidt and kahles side by side both at 25x looking at the same distance and held them both on the same spot on the left edge of view. The Schmidt’s view extended significantly more to the right. Above you can see the Schmidt at 25 is listed at 4.92.
Not sure who made that chart but if you REALLY don’t believe me I’ll take some pics for you through the scope on Friday illustrating my point. There’s a significant difference between the two.
Huh? The Schmidt I compared to the kahles 525 was a pm2 5-25. Which is what’s in that chart. The numbers in the chart are def wrong is what I’m saying. I’d remove it before spreading misinformation.
Ok just when to https://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/products/police-military-forces/5-25x56-pm-iilp.html
for the same scope I shot for many years that was considered the one of the best.
5-25x56 PM II/LP
The 5-25x56 PM II/LP model is the scope for universal use with big magnification and an extremely comprehensive total adjustment range. It is equipped with parallax compensation, illuminated reticle and two turns in the elevation adjustment (Double Turn). Thanks to its big magnification and comprehensive reticle adjustment the scope may be successfully used up to a distance of 2,000 meters. Parallax compensation may be adjusted starting at 10 meters and reaching to infinity. The scope may be supplied with the reticle in the first or in the second focal plane.
| Field of view m/100 m | 5,3 - 1,5 |
| Exit pupil mm | 10,95 - 2,28 |
| Eye relief distance mm | 90 |
| Twilightfactor | 14,1 - 37,4 |
| Transmission | 90 % |
| Optical data dptr. | -3/+2 |
| Parallax adjustment | 10 m - ∞ |
| Weight g | 1080 |
| Reticles 1st focal plane | P3L / P4L / P4L fein / Police / Klein / H2CMR / H37 |
| Reticles 2nd focal plane | P3L / P4L / P4L fein |
Because you seem to be struggling with the concept
5.3 meters is 17.388451'
100 meters is 109.36133y
That means that the FOV is less at 100y
0.91439999861011 X 17.388451' = 15.899999570232'
Sure your scope might have more mils of travel than the spec.. so might mine or maybe a hair better eye-box than spec'd.. but your just acting like an ass.. yes, I didn't include the .09' - The idea was big picture..
The K525 FOV is right in there with the rest maybe the Razor being the best.. My Original point was that of the OPs two choices the Atacr 7-35 has a huge limitation for many types of shooting because of it's low FOV.
Last edited:
Is the NF lower FV because it starts at 7x instead 5x like S&B and Kahles?Ok just when to https://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/products/police-military-forces/5-25x56-pm-iilp.html
for the same scope I shot for many years that was considered the one of the best.
5-25x56 PM II/LP
The 5-25x56 PM II/LP model is the scope for universal use with big magnification and an extremely comprehensive total adjustment range. It is equipped with parallax compensation, illuminated reticle and two turns in the elevation adjustment (Double Turn). Thanks to its big magnification and comprehensive reticle adjustment the scope may be successfully used up to a distance of 2,000 meters. Parallax compensation may be adjusted starting at 10 meters and reaching to infinity. The scope may be supplied with the reticle in the first or in the second focal plane.
Field of view m/100 m 5,3 - 1,5 Exit pupil mm 10,95 - 2,28 Eye relief distance mm 90 Twilightfactor 14,1 - 37,4 Transmission 90 % Optical data dptr. -3/+2 Parallax adjustment 10 m - ∞ Weight g 1080 Reticles 1st focal plane P3L / P4L / P4L fein / Police / Klein / H2CMR / H37 Reticles 2nd focal plane P3L / P4L / P4L fein
Because you seem to be struggling with the concept
5.3 meters is 17.388451'
100 meters is 109.36133y
That means that the FOV is less at 100y
0.91439999861011 X 17.388451' = 15.899999570232'
Sure your scope might have more mils of travel than the spec.. so might mine or maybe a hair better eye-box than spec'd.. but your just acting like an ass.. yes, I didn't include the .09' - The idea was big picture..
The K525 FOV is right in there with the rest maybe the Razor being the best.. My Original point was that of the OPs two choices the Atacr 7-35 has a huge limitation for maybe types of shooting because of i's low FOV.
Look at the 10X numbers and 15X numbers.. I owned it.. as an ELR scope fine, but I didn't work for positional matches for me.
I was just asking. I’ll be honest, I don’t look at the details like you guys do. I kinda just go by do I like it or not. But I’m trying to become a more knowledgeable consumer.
I get that, I have bought and sold more stuff, spending more $$ that I am ever willing to try to account for. I tend to buy first and cry later as I realize I don't like it. Someone else then swoops in for a great buy.
I need to make a priority list and slow my impulsiveness down.. On the other hand, my out of control spending has provide me with a lot of first hand experience and empty pockets...
All im Saying is your data suggests the kahles and yes that exact model Schmidt have the same fov at 25x and I can confirm that is not nearly true in real life. I can get you some pics on Friday. Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to set the facts straight. Pulling numbers off the internet is great but obviously nothing beats actual testing in person.
Ill also get pics with the 7-35 ATACR for comparison as well at the actual magnifications.
And if you’re suggesting it’s sample to sample variation I’ve got access to 4 Schmidt 5-25s and 2 kahles 525 to test this weekend if the rain holds up. Scheduled to rain Thursday-next week here
I not suggesting the the numbers will be exact. But close enough to realize that the ZCO and the 7-35 at 10-15x are in two different classes in therms of FOV. I also don’t think the Kahles is worth deaming horrible. The hairs in the middle don’t matter that much to die on a sord to me..
At that point, reticle, turrets etc state being my concern. Again, the only idea is to put stuff in context.
How a scope feels is very personal to a large extent. Even with my Razors nice FOV, it seems harder for me to get behind than my old 35mm 58 obj USO when “off angle”.. My Minox ZP5 looked great on paper but the fact that it never had a crisply defined outer edge on the top 1/3 of the scope drove me nuts, I like my Kahles 525i but wish it had the glass of my S&B, but didn’t totally love the P4F and hated the reticle in both my Atacrs with the straw like image and and hard to see reticle at 10x, of the 7-35 — So ya, no need for pics, nothing in the specs of any of these would have told me how theses felt, I certainly agree there.
At that point, reticle, turrets etc state being my concern. Again, the only idea is to put stuff in context.
How a scope feels is very personal to a large extent. Even with my Razors nice FOV, it seems harder for me to get behind than my old 35mm 58 obj USO when “off angle”.. My Minox ZP5 looked great on paper but the fact that it never had a crisply defined outer edge on the top 1/3 of the scope drove me nuts, I like my Kahles 525i but wish it had the glass of my S&B, but didn’t totally love the P4F and hated the reticle in both my Atacrs with the straw like image and and hard to see reticle at 10x, of the 7-35 — So ya, no need for pics, nothing in the specs of any of these would have told me how theses felt, I certainly agree there.
As promised. Schmidt 5-25 and a kahles 525i same day same distance at 25x. As you can see the Schmidt has significantly more FOV
Attachments
Those pics were at 420 yards. At that distance I’d say its close to that. The key takeaway from this I wanted to get across to Dover is that the numbers he listed at off from what’s depicted in reality. When it comes to field of view we get a diameter. But really you need to compare area not a linear unit as measure. As you can see when looking through the scopes it’s pretty astounding. In practical difference this means you need to back off an additional 2x on tha smal FOV scopes to get the same field of view as the better ones
.......no one is arguing that the k525i doesn’t have a smaller FOV. The point is that it’s not small enough to matter.
Any amount of FOV difference is “noticeable.”
What scenario is there where the slightly smaller FOV will cause you not to find your target (that you shouldn’t be searching for in the optic anyway), or cause you to miss?
Any amount of FOV difference is “noticeable.”
What scenario is there where the slightly smaller FOV will cause you not to find your target (that you shouldn’t be searching for in the optic anyway), or cause you to miss?
Shoot house Window that’s 8x4” and only the gun will fit through.
Free recoiling off a bag and the scope moves and you miss an impact because of the smaller field of view.
I can go on. And for the record yes someone was arguing the kahles field of view was similar to the Schmidt. Hence why I posted these pics to illustrate the difference. The kahles is an awesome scope mechanically. Optically I think there are better engineered scopes out there.
Point is, it’s spilled milk. An argument over a preference that has no real practical application.
I respectfully disagree. Field of view makes a difference to me in field shooting events
Similar threads
