To measure exactly 100 yards, where do you start the measurement from? The turrets?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New High End Tactical article
- Thread starter koshkin
- Start date
To measure exactly 100 yards, where do you start the measurement from? The turrets?
Yes please. It would be a helpful reference.
I have 2 of the kahles 6-24 some 3 and am about to switch back to the gen 2 vortex.
I have 2 of the kahles 6-24 some 3 and am about to switch back to the gen 2 vortex.
Because that’s what the target board is set up at and the linear increment doesn’t matter so long as it’s correct?
Subscribing. As a current user of a ZP5, I have been rooting for it in your testing. Glad I went that route over the K624.
Jerry
Jerry
Hope this is trolling.
That is correct spife, it doesn't matter what distance as long as the measurement matches the mil values at that distance, the target could be yards, meters, feet, kilometers, cubits and so on, distance doesn't matter (at least not the distances we typically shoot at). The only reason to convert the mil value to something linear is so we can measure and normally we'd say don't even measure because the ruler (reticle) is right in front of you, but this time the poster is trying to verify if their reticle lines up with the correct measurement at a certain distance (meaning, is the ruler actually laid out correctly), but there could be a number of factors that are affecting the alignment or rather the mis-alignment the poster is seeing. I would recommend the poster do a tall target test, and then verify at distance, wind and/or not truing your ballistics will most likely cause more misses than your reticle, but I understand when we spend a lot of hard earned money on a scope we want to know that everything is working properly.
If the measurement is supposed to be made at the objective, rather than the center of the turrets, that'd basically explain the error, give or take?
Without knowing exactly how he is set-up, I can't tell.
Generally, with FFP scopes, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the reticle dimensions are wrong..
ILya
Maybe there is some error in the 100 yard measurement? I didnt read that he said how he measured 100 yards. Probably best to use a tape measure, not a laser rangefinder.
I suppose this begs the question - should we just trust the manufacturer has etched the reticle properly (I'm assuming they have devises that can measure this much more accurately than we can), assuming the scope is coming from a reputable mfr.
Well, the manufacturing process that they use for reticles these days is extremely repeatable and reliable - they actually use semiconductor production machines (same machines that print semiconductor masks, etc). So, unless there's some kind of gross error, etc, it's a pretty solid bet that the reticle itself is etched on the glass exactly was it was designed.
What I learned during the factory tour that I did at Vortex was that this was actually part of what drove reticle production off-shore. The equipment they use for reticles is actually a few generations old (like, it might be 90nm or 65nm stuff, IIRC? State of the art is 5nm and moving to 3.5...), and Vortex had trouble finding a fab that still had that generation of machine in the US that was capable/willing to produce the reticles, and could reliably deliver them at the volume Vortex required. I might be off on the specs, but the general gist is correct.
Thank you for that davere, I suppose it's possible for the mfr to mess up on the etching, but I would also assume they have a way of checking to ensure that has not occurred. So in the end it seems like checking the accuracy of the reticle is a bit redundant; whereas, checking to make sure tracking works (the turrets being a mechanical system) is the more worthwhile effort.
Tracking, definitely. I don't think it's bad to potentially double check the reticle, if you think something is awry - there are other things that could be wrong (like a mis-installed reticle) that could cause issues. But, my understanding matches Ilya's in that the reticle itself is likely manufactured correctly (or at least within a small enough tolerance that we can't measure it in the field) - and I would likely look first to errors in my test setup and target size before thinking it might be the reticle itself.
Spent some decent time behind my M7Xi this weekend. Mimics my eval almost exactly. Its weird how great the image qual is until roughly 18x for me then you notice a very distinct drop off in quality. Not that it got "bad" but def worse. I was still able to see 223 holes at 300 yards on 28x so it didn't suck. But up until that 18x point, it is some of the best glass Ive looked through. Zooming in and out really brought this to light.
GL
DT
If anyone's interested I did a tracking test with some schmidts, Kahles, NF, and Vortex. Link is below
www.snipershide.com
Rifle Scopes - RESULTS ADDED Scope Tracking Test Fixture *pics*
A buddy of mine just finished building this for me. Was too nice not to post. Wanted to show it to give others ideas of making their own. All steel so it weighs a LOT. Def not moving i don’t care how stiff your turrets are lol. Used an old 0moa steel tikka CTR rail I had laying around. The...
www.snipershide.com
The plan is to do a couple more videos first. Then I will integrated the videos with a written article. The written article will not be quite as detailed as they have been in the past, but it will fill in the things I miss while making the videos and offer some final conclusions.
I am done with most of the testing already, but I am a somewhat busy and I took a bit of a side track to spend a little time with a prototype March 5-42x56 that looks like a very promising design so far
ILya
Very much looking forward to hearing about the new March 5-42x56 high master!
The March 5-42x56 I am looking at is a prototype, so there is not going to be a full review or a whole lot of details until I get a chance to look at a production model.
Overall, I think this scope is designed to compete with the best out there and since I have a Mark 5HD on hand, I am pretty sure the new March is a better scope, as it should be given that it is likely going to be more expensive.
This March is an entirely new design, which includes a new wider angle eyepiece. I think this is March's first use of this eyepiece and I like what I am seeing so far.
ILya
Overall, I think this scope is designed to compete with the best out there and since I have a Mark 5HD on hand, I am pretty sure the new March is a better scope, as it should be given that it is likely going to be more expensive.
This March is an entirely new design, which includes a new wider angle eyepiece. I think this is March's first use of this eyepiece and I like what I am seeing so far.
ILya
That's very true about pre-production, hard to say since nothing is solidified in the design yet, but very promising it sounds like. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on what advantages the wider angle eyepiece provides, specifically with this magnification range. Even though it is a prototype it does have the "High Master" glass which is a new proprietary front objective sandwiched in between two super-ED glass elements, they have some SFP scopes already with "High Master" that get rave reviews from those that have them, curious if you can "see" the difference as well?
Bill, it is a nice scope. I promised March I will not go into too much detail until there is a production scope for me to look at, but when I say it is designed to compete with the best, I mean exactly that. I just started looking at it, so there are a lot of things for me to check. It will take a little time, but there are clearly some aspects of this design that are a step forward for March as far as tactical scopes go.
ILya
You said "high end scopes" but I see no mention of the Counter Sniper.. Am I missing something here?
Maybe sime day, when I have a little more time, I'll put together a Counter Sniper vs Quigley Ford article. I am sure I can round up some other similarly brilliant designs while I am at it.
ILya
ILya
@koshkin
For my own education, when comparing say the zco 527 to theta 525p, what makes the zco image seem so much larger? Is it the tube size, diopter area, etc?
I have an mpct2 zco and gen3xr theta. I like them both for differ reasons. But the image and eyebox on the zco definitely stand out over the theta.
For my own education, when comparing say the zco 527 to theta 525p, what makes the zco image seem so much larger? Is it the tube size, diopter area, etc?
I have an mpct2 zco and gen3xr theta. I like them both for differ reasons. But the image and eyebox on the zco definitely stand out over the theta.
None of the above.
It is mostly eyepiece design. ZCO has one of the better eyepiece designs I have seen lately and a rather large eyepiece. You barely see the ring around it, so the image looks large and very immersive. I did some FOV measurement, and the actual FOV at the same magnification is larger on the TT, but ZCO is a very immersive image.
ILya
Thanks. It’s quite impressive and comfortable image. Hopefully this becomes a trend.
Is it a different angle of view from most or just the internal design? Curious if the wide angle eyepiece of the new March 5-42x56 HM may offer a similar experience
ZCO is the best I have seen so far given the short length.
For crossover use, I am still sticking with TT315M and AMG since they are lighter.
Vudu is freakishly short and very good for the price and how short it is.
If it was 4-20x instead of 5-25x and had a normal tree reticle, I'd have a couple of these already.
ILya
Shot first match with the gen3xr today. The center dot is “large” but it’s a non issue.
I think it edges out zco on “mirage mitigation,” if that’s even a thing. Seems like mirage is less of an issue with theta compared to most any other optic.
Turrets are awesome as to be expected.
I still thing it’s a toss up between zco and theta when you look at the entire package.
$700+ more for theta than Zco. It’s really hard to pick one over the other, depending on the intended use.
I think it edges out zco on “mirage mitigation,” if that’s even a thing. Seems like mirage is less of an issue with theta compared to most any other optic.
Turrets are awesome as to be expected.
I still thing it’s a toss up between zco and theta when you look at the entire package.
$700+ more for theta than Zco. It’s really hard to pick one over the other, depending on the intended use.
I plan to add ZCO to my list of recommendations. So far it has been only Tangents and AMG, so that should tell you how much I liked the scope.
Now, I am not going to go out and sell my Tangents, but that 4-20x50 ZCO is calling me. I think I have an application for it.
ILya
ILya,
What's the scoop on a review of the NF 7-35? I know NF wasn't interested in giving you a sample but thought you had a source for one...
I sorta gave up on that. The whole Nightforce thing was a pretty big misunderstanding, I think, but they stopped talking to me cold turkey. I have so many scopes here already that I simply don't want to chase after another manufacturer. I am kinda tired of doing that anyway. It takes too much time and effort and I would rather be testing scopes than arguing with manufacturers.
ILya
I hear you...
If we have a crappy New England winter, I may have to think about offering up mine for you to look at..would love to see how it does compare. I really like it
I've seen it and it seemed like a really nice scope, but I have not had enough time with it to go into any details.
ILya
That's interesting what you say about mirage DT. I've always thought that comes down to overall IQ and a scopes ability to resolve detail and micro contrast, so I wonder if the TT still has an "edge" over the ZCO in this regard. ILya, this might be a great topic for a video to talk about a scopes ability to "cut through" mirage, if that is even possible. I realize it could just be our eyes or our brains interpretation of what our eye is seeing.
Also, with regard to the price difference I thought the ZCO sells for $3600 and the TT sells for $4663, that is $1000 difference right or are you talking about street price and the fact that a TT can be had at less than full retail while the ZCO cannot?
Personally, I'd have a harder time with the ZC527 because of the competition from TT, Schmidt and Minox ZP5 as these scopes are peers and pretty much the same magnification, but the ZC420 really stands out above the crowd and like ILya mentioned, I'm trying to figure out a reason to pick one up. I do wish the MPCT reticles had dots in the Christmas tree like the MR4 as I am not a fan of bold tree reticles, heck I even feel the SKMR3 is bold and its thinner than the MPCT2, but for the main horizontal and vertical stadia I prefer the thicker lines of the MPCT series over SKMR. For this reason I might lean toward the MPCT1 reticle in the ZC420; however, if they had dots in the tree like the MR4 I'd definitely pick that up, maybe a future MPCT3 reticle will have dots in the Christmas tree as I'd much prefer that over the MPCT2.
Last edited:
TT can be had new for $4200-4300, just have to call around and ask. SnipersHide discount, cash discount, PRS discount, etc. There is no discounts on ZCO, is what it is.
@Dthomas3523 and I were discussing the other day how each scope handles mirage. I recently downgraded to a 7-35 ATACR. Friday at 1k, the targets were completely washed out. White targets against light clay berm made it difficult to differentiate what was what. If it hadn’t been for the orange dots or water marks I wouldn’t have been able to differentiate. It was around noon and already 100deg +.
Back track a couple range sessions to when I still had my TT. I was able to compare the TT to ZCO. ZCO looked like the fuzzy TV screen when you have no signal. Almost completely washed out. TT was better you could still make out objects but did notice some mirage. The Henny spotter didn’t see any mirage.
Last edited:
Right. I wonder if ZCO will continue this model where they do not allow any markdown from dealers like TT and others. One nice thing is it allows the resale value to stay very high, that and the fact it is the new hot thing doesn't hurt either.
Similar threads
