Rifle Scopes Official Zero Compromise Optic News & Updates

[Baron23]

LOL! Yea I go down to Delmarva Sporting Clays and up to Peacemarker which I'm a member. About an hour and a half drive for me coming from Southern MD

How far south?

Been to Delmarva and shot their 500 yd range…w the benches in the metal building w a ton of other crap when I’ve been there (not this year).

Our complaint is that they would not let us bring our own buggy to go down range with and the kid in the golf cart was hard to find, didn’t have paint for steel, his cart only had one passenger seat so how the fuck is anybody else supposed to get down range to see their results, put up new targets, etc.

We found it to be a bit of a PIA but late lunch at Fisherman’s Inn was great as always! Haha

 

[QS-1911]

How far south?

Been to Delmarva and shot their 500 yd range…w the benches in the metal building w a ton of other crap when I’ve been there (not this year).

Our complaint is that they would not let us bring our own buggy to go down range with and the kid in the golf cart was hard to find, didn’t have paint for steel, his cart only had one passenger seat so how the fuck is anybody else supposed to get down range to see their results, put up new targets, etc.

We found it to be a bit of a PIA but late lunch at Fisherman’s Inn was great as always! Haha

I've never had any issues there. Surprised in hearing that. I'm on the edge of PG and Charles County.

 

[Glassaholic]

Love love love the FDE ZCO!! Block mount and accessories are machined extremely well, really love this setup. Got my gear from Jake @MNTC (Mountic Outdoors) who's a Hide dealer and a great guy to deal with.

 

[QS-1911]

Love love love the FDE ZCO!! Block mount and accessories are machined extremely well, really love this setup. Got my gear from Jake @MNTC (Mountic Outdoors) who's a Hide dealer and a great guy to deal with.

View attachment 7874644

View attachment 7874645
View attachment 7874646
View attachment 7874647
View attachment 7874648

View attachment 7874649
View attachment 7874650
View attachment 7874651
View attachment 7874653View attachment 7874652

NICE!

 

[MOUNTIC]

Love love love the FDE ZCO!! Block mount and accessories are machined extremely well, really love this setup. Got my gear from Jake @MNTC (Mountic Outdoors) who's a Hide dealer and a great guy to deal with.

View attachment 7874644

View attachment 7874645
View attachment 7874646
View attachment 7874647
View attachment 7874648

View attachment 7874649
View attachment 7874650
View attachment 7874651
View attachment 7874653View attachment 7874652

What an amazing setup. Glad you are loving it!

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

By customer's requests, any new ZCO orders from us can get a free CS Tactical hat if they ask for one as we have them in stock We have plenty right now...

Dang it. If I'd waited a few more months I could have gotten that hat. That's the only hat I will wear, but my freaking dog got and crunched the bill up some, sure wish I could get another........

 

[CSTactical]

@CSTactical @gebhardt02

So, finally got this gun reasonably put together with the ZCO 5-27 I bought from you for it mounted on top. Pics to follow.

One thing...I do love and use ARC rings and did indeed follow the meandering and somewhat inconclusive threads about torque values with ZCO and ARC rings. I have a Mk5 5-25 in ARC rings torqued at 53 in/lbs (closest fix-it-stick limiter I have to ARC's recommended 55 in/lbs) and no problemo. And, I do vaguely understand Ted's explanation about multiple small screws vs one big one and the applied torque values needed in these different situations in order to obtain the same resulting clamping force (right term...maybe??) on the tube .

So, I went for it (yeah, no guts/no glory has resulted in multiple catastrophes in my life! haha). First time I torqued the rings it appeared to me that the parallax was binding!! I say appear because I panicked (hey, that scope was a lot of $$ for me haha) and dismounted it immediately. I went so fast I may have actually gone backwards in time. It occurred to me later that I may have grabbed the illumination ring by mistake or.....WTF knows??

In any case, I immediately backed off the the screws, parallax moved free and easy (and yeah, confirmed I was grabbing the right ring this time) and it seemed like disaster was avoided. So, I went up in stages, 25 in/lbs, check parallax movement. Then 45 and check, all good. Then up to 53 again and still the parallax is moving free and easy and doing its job as verified at the range. So, a bit of adrenaline (you have no idea how good I am at breaking shit with hand tools...sigh) but all seems to have ended well.

I will say that this scope amazes me. Just left me giggling. Best scope I have owned is a Mk 5 and I have nothing bad to say about it. It works well and I got it for a reasonable price. I have looked thru/shot Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss, and Kahles on the higher ends but not to any great extent....sort of just take a look and maybe take a couple of shots. But never had the chance to really spend any time behind a top qual scope like the ZCO and I was just gobsmacked.

By the by, Richard....I think our agreement to go with the MPTC 3X reticle was the correct one. I still have very little experience using it but my initial impression is that it seems intuitive to read and and the tree is not too intrusive or cluttering.

I bore sighted it, began barrel break in as this scope went on a brand new BA from Altus (who really know how to cut a clean chamber), and zero'd it all the while shvitzing my nuts off in Maryland 99F/90% soggy day. haha

Ok, pics....but apparently I'm not as good of a photog as our friend @viking78

View attachment 7874224
View attachment 7874225
View attachment 7874226

Awesome, glad you're enjoying it!!!

 

[Baron23]

Dang it. If I'd waited a few more months I could have gotten that hat. That's the only hat I will wear, but my freaking dog got and crunched the bill up some, sure wish I could get another........

Hey, at least you got a hat…and the dog got a chew toy.

Looks like @Nik H and I will have to spend another $4,200 or so (each! Haha) to get one! Lol

 

[Secant]

Hey, at least you got a hat…and the dog got a chew toy.

Looks like @Nik H and I will have to spend another $4,200 or so (each! Haha) to get one! Lol

 

[Baron23]

hahaha....yeah, its been a standing joke that has just probably gotten stale and needs to be dropped.

Hey, anything worth doing is worth obsessing over, right? LOL

 

[BuLLet]

Looks great..... Maybe another ZCO is in my future.

Love love love the FDE ZCO!! Block mount and accessories are machined extremely well, really love this setup. Got my gear from Jake @MNTC (Mountic Outdoors) who's a Hide dealer and a great guy to deal with.

View attachment 7874644

View attachment 7874645
View attachment 7874646
View attachment 7874647
View attachment 7874648

View attachment 7874649
View attachment 7874650
View attachment 7874651
View attachment 7874653View attachment 7874652

 

[CSTactical]

Finally was able to get it uploaded on youtube

 

[viking78]

Nothing new on scopes, but got back from cerakoted my 2 Whiskey forend/grip kits, i like that green one.

 

[Baron23]

Moving the below to here from Richards @CSTactical thread that @viking78 and I were trashing up a bit....sorry, Richard.
-------------------------
@viking78

Baron23 reply
Hello my friend - I'm no mech engineer but I do generally understand that the torque spec required to obtain the identical clamping force on the scope will be higher with less and larger screws and lower for more and smaller screws. So, for example, the 18 in/lbs that Vortex recommends is for more traditional four screw, split top/bottom type rings is too low when using a ring like ARC's with one big screw (pic below).

In any case, I did have to loosen the rings to level the scope this morning and only took it up to 45 in/lbs this time and parallax stayed free and easy moving so all is well.

Thanks for the reply and I'm loving this scope so far.

I do have on windage turret screw that came a big buggered up (really can't seat the hex key in there fully). Just called ZCO, Jeff answered, and a small pack of these screws is on its way to me. Outstanding all around

ARC Rings (which are excellent in every way)

M-BRACE SCOPE RINGS

www.americanrifle.com

 

[Glassaholic]

Looks great..... Maybe another ZCO is in my future.

They really did fantastic, Cerakote is done extremely well, I prefer it over anodizing but that’s preference.

 

[chawhoday]

Extraordinary. How many bullets should we use?

 

[BuLLet]

If you can't do it in one, stay home!

Extraordinary. How many bullets should we use?

 

[wooferocau]

Just arrived in Oz......Will be paired with a Desert Tech HTI 375CT when it arrives shortly.... Little brother.... SRS wears the ZCO 5-27...

 

[viking78]

I had my last day with the wonderful 840 today.
Need to send it back to Austria tomorrow.
I had a blast with that scope, it is just so awesome.

 

[CSTactical]

I had my last day with the wonderful 840 today.
Need to send it back to Austria tomorrow.
I had a blast with that scope, it is just so awesome.
View attachment 7878007

So that means you need one for yourself...

 

[viking78]

So that means you need one for yourself...

If i only would have money to buy one, i would.

 

[Lesco Brandon]

Does anyone else have an issue with the parallax knob on the 8x40? Starting at the close yardage marks it turns easily then seems to “thunk” around 100 yards and progressively get stiffer the further out I turn. It’s way to stiff.

 

[StrayDog]

I had a 5-27 with a wonky parallax knob. Contact your vendor. They and ZCO will set you right.

 

[mark82]

Does anyone else have an issue with the parallax knob on the 8x40? Starting at the close yardage marks it turns easily then seems to “thunk” around 100 yards and progressively get stiffer the further out I turn. It’s way to stiff.

Had similar problem where the knob seemed to have some loose play in it, then seemed to engage. The image didnt match the knob position.
Sent it in for a checkup and it was fine (great service!) and conclusion was the ring torque spec was too tight IOW, go with scope spec not ring spec.

 

[Baron23]

I took my new ZCO 5-27 to the range to do a scope tracking test. I used my buddy’s Target USA scope fixture and a SH tracking target from box to bench.

Store - Box to Bench Precision

Snipers Hide 100 Yard Scope Tracking Target - MIL - MOA - For Milliradian and Minute of Angle Scopes - True Minute of Angle - Precision Shooting -

www.boxtobenchprecision.com

The scope was dead nuts on. DEAD. NUTS. ON.

Not even off a little that could be discerned with this test procedure.

I did ring the elev to 10 mils multiple times and it was spot on and accurately returned to zero. I also dialed one mil left and right and again worked down to 10 mils and back. Perfect.

As you can see, there are two sets of vertical mil markings on these targets and I should have dialed left about 3.5-4 mil to get onto the right hand vertical and then tested it up/down with more windage cranked in......but, I didn't (haha, because it didn't occur to me until now! haha).

Its early days but so far I'm loving this scope.

By the by, I do have it in ARC rings and I also have a Mk 5 in ARC rings with them torqued to Ted's recommended 55 in/lbs (well, 53 is the fix it sticks torque limiter that I have). When I initially did this, it seemed like the parallax knob was bound but I may have grabbed the illumination ring by mistake...dunno as I backed those screws off at light speed! haha So, I took it up to 25, then 40, then 53 again and the parallax was fine. But, after leveling the scope against a plumb bob I only took them up to 40 (or maybe its 45) and as long as it doesn't move under recoil then I'm happy.

I do know we have some mechanical engineers here who understand far better than I the difference between six small ring screws at 18 or 20-something in/lbs vs ARC with one big screw which would dictate a higher torque value on the screw in order to produce the same "grip" on the scope tube.

In any case, the scope is working perfectly, tracked perfectly, the eye box makes my Mk 5 look pitiful, and I'm looking forward to years of shooting with this outstanding optic. I've never owned or really used a scope of this caliber...and if the market and my retirement account go down anymore I'll never own another one! haha

Cheers

 

[CSTactical]

@Baron23 glad you're enjoying your ZCO like I expected

 

[Baron23]

@Baron23 glad you're enjoying your ZCO like I expected

Hey, Richard...I only got a "like" and not a "love" to my tracking post? haha...joking, my friend.

I'm very happy with it and, while I need more time behind it, to date I think your recommendation of the MPCT3X was the right reticle for me based on what I told you. Lots of features and functionality without appearing too busy or distracting to my eye.

Happy camper here for sure.

Take care and happy trails.

 

[viking78]

I could go and shooting every day, but the dick of the russia, the putler, the fuel prices are sky high.
On my life time, i have never seen this expensive prices.
One gallon cost in Finland 11$.
But i still go 2-4 times a week, we only live once, and i love ZCO too much, to just sit them on the gun safety

 

[viking78]

Fourth ZCO, ZC420 with MPCT2 reticle.
Also Tactacam arrived, but the importer does not have the mount for the scope.
Has some one by the way put one of these to ZCO?

 

[viking78]

Roni likes ZC420, MPCT2 reticle on this one.
Scope zero set today, made a new video of that and how to set the zero stop, it is coming soon.
Renny Harlin with backwoods edit

.
.
.
.

 

[viking78]

 

[CSTactical]

For you MOA guys we have some ZC420 MOA's being built soon! PM me your information so I can get you in line for one

 

[viking78]

Zero Compromise Optic is the king of rifle optic, no doubt.

 

[Glassaholic]

Zero Compromise Optic is the king of rifle optic, no doubt.
View attachment 7888810

Love the rifle and the shot, but do they not allow you to pain suppressors in Finland?

 

[viking78]

Love the rifle and the shot, but do they not allow you to pain suppressors in Finland?

That suppressor is 100% stainless steel, and this manufacturer does not have option to cerakote the can to other colors.
But i will take care of that, it will be a someting other color than that in the next time i will post a picture
But if you have a stainless rifle, then this can would be a spot on.

 

[6point5CM]

My NLE 8-40 wait is over!! Still not 100% sure what torque value to use in ARC/M-BRACE rings. I’ve seen 40-55 run on here… it’s a 6 Dasher so I’m thinking 45 in lb? Not much for recoil. Feel free to PM if you recommend something different.

 

[Glassaholic]

My NLE 8-40 wait is over!! Still not 100% sure what torque value to use in ARC/M-BRACE rings. I’ve seen 40-55 run on here… it’s a 6 Dasher so I’m thinking 45 in lb? Not much for recoil. Feel free to PM if you recommend something different.

Who’s saying to use less torque than what ARC recommends? I’ve spoken with Ted about this before, a lot of people see the high (55 in-lbs) value and get concerned when most other rings are 15-18 in-lbs but ARC rings are single bolt vs 4 or sometimes 6 bolts. In lieu of the design ARC is different from the rest and I’ve found the recommended torque to be spot on with multiple scopes I’ve used over the years. ARC has been one of the cleanest ring/mount sets even on soft bodied scopes like the old Premier LT’s that were known to get distorted tubes if you torqued too high with traditional rings.

I had my ZCO in ARC rings and never had an issue using my Borka 55 in-lb wrench.

 

[6point5CM]

Who’s saying to use less torque than what ARC recommends? I’ve spoken with Ted about this before, a lot of people see the high (55 in-lbs) value and get concerned when most other rings are 15-18 in-lbs but ARC rings are single bolt vs 4 or sometimes 6 bolts. In lieu of the design ARC is different from the rest and I’ve found the recommended torque to be spot on with multiple scopes I’ve used over the years. ARC has been one of the cleanest ring/mount sets even on soft bodied scopes like the old Premier LT’s that were known to get distorted tubes if you torqued too high with traditional rings.

I had my ZCO in ARC rings and never had an issue using my Borka 55 in-lb wrench.

I was going off the 2022 ZCO specs listed in this thread and then other user experiences chiming in. It’s my first ZCO so if I’m off base let me know!

 

[Sagittarius]

I remember Ted saying here on the Hide that it's okay to use only 30 in-lbs for a 22LR due to the light recoil if you like.
That's exactly what I intend to use for my M-Brace mount if I ever get it.
Don't know what he might recommend for a light recoiling centerfire though.

 

[Glassaholic]

I was going off the 2022 ZCO specs listed in this thread and then other user experiences chiming in. It’s my first ZCO so if I’m off base let me know!

I had no idea ZCO is recommending only 30 in-lb for their scopes with ARC rings, I would be curious to hear why only 30 with ZCO??? I can only guess as to why but would be curious if there has been a more detailed explanation as I’ve used 55 with almost every other brand out there without issue.

 

[Lesco Brandon]

I had no idea ZCO is recommending only 30 in-lb for their scopes with ARC rings, I would be curious to hear why only 30 with ZCO??? I can only guess as to why but would be curious if there has been a more detailed explanation as I’ve used 55 with almost every other brand out there without issue.

I personally spoke with ZCO and they said that while they recommended 30, 55 “shouldn’t matter” when I inquired.

 

[Glassaholic]

I personally spoke with ZCO and they said that while they recommended 30, 55 “shouldn’t matter” when I inquired.

That has me scratching my head some, so they haven't said not to use 55 but have indicated all you need is 30 with their scopes.

 

[Lesco Brandon]

That has me scratching my head some, so they haven't said not to use 55 but have indicated all you need is 30 with their scopes.

When I called Jeff and indicated I used ARC M clamp rings I was met with the question well you didn’t use their recommended 55 in/lbs did you? Well I didn’t because my fix-it-stix doesn’t have a 55 in/lb so I went lighter. He then said well, not that it should matter.
The super fan base wants to lash out and blame me. It’s super annoying. I like the glass, the rest of it needs to work too. I had in depth conversations with ARC as to why 55 in/lb is actually required with their design.

 

[Glassaholic]

When I called Jeff and indicated I used ARC M clamp rings I was met with the question well you didn’t use their recommended 55 in/lbs did you? Well I didn’t because my fix-it-stix doesn’t have a 55 in/lb so I went lighter. He then said well, not that it should matter.
The super fan base wants to lash out and blame me. It’s super annoying. I like the glass, the rest of it needs to work too. I had in depth conversations with ARC as to why 55 in/lb is actually required with their design.

I would love to hear a conversation between Ted Karagias and Jeff Huber on this What I can say is that I've used ARC for many years and used them on scopes from just about every manufacturer and have never had an issue with 55 in-lb. If we shouldn't be using ARC rings/mounts with ZCO scopes due to some incompatibility with the design then it should be "shouted from the rooftops", but it would be good to get a conclusive answer. If I was shooting a big magnum I would be very nervous using ARC and only 30 in-lb at almost half their recommended torque.

Also, talking about this subject in ZCO's sticky on news and updates may not be the most appropriate place. Jesse, have you thought of starting a new thread about this as I think it would be good to get a conclusive resolution.

 

[Baron23]

I would love to hear a conversation between Ted Karagias and Jeff Huber on this What I can say is that I've used ARC for many years and used them on scopes from just about every manufacturer and have never had an issue with 55 in-lb. If we shouldn't be using ARC rings/mounts with ZCO scopes due to some incompatibility with the design then it should be "shouted from the rooftops", but it would be good to get a conclusive answer. If I was shooting a big magnum I would be very nervous using ARC and only 30 in-lb at almost half their recommended torque.

Also, talking about this subject in ZCO's sticky on news and updates may not be the most appropriate place. Jesse, have you thought of starting a new thread about this as I think it would be good to get a conclusive resolution.

Oh hell....this is coming back up again.

Not sure who it was, but there was a thread started by a guy who claimed that he kept breaking internal lenses in...after a good bit of pressure and figuring it out...a ZCO in ARC rings. I may have this confused a bit as it was a while ago and became quite a dust up. I think there was also someone who said that their parallax got bound up when tightened to 55 in/lbs (but not terribly sure of that).

Then it was brought up that between the manual and the "sticker" there were two different torque values recommended....I believe 20 and 25 in/lbs but don't quote me on this.

Then it was brought up that this torque spec most likely was in reference to traditional top/bottom split rings with 4-6 small screws for each ring vs the ARC with one big screw and how this changes the clamping force on the tube for a given torque value. That is, many small screws to...for example...20 in/lbs is more clamping force on the tube that a set of ARCs at the same torque value.

Oh, it went on and on and Jeff finally popped in and in sort of emulation of King Solomon suggested "splitting the baby" and just use 30 in/lbs. And it was allowed that scope manufactures cannot determine torque values for all configurations of rings.....something I don't really agree with. If there are a number of different configurations (2, 4, 6, and ARC), then address them all in a matrix (table, if you will) though really no scope manf does this.

I love ARC rings and use them with the 5-27 I have. Initially, I torqued to 53 in/lbs (Fix it Stick torque limiter) in one go and thought the parallax ring was bound. But, I backed those screws off at Warp 5 lightspeed that I really didn't confirm it and I may have grabbed the illumination ring. Like I said, I instantly backed them off so please do use this as a data point as its not totally clear what actually happened.

THEN, to took them to 25 and then 45 in/lbs and parallax was fine. Later, when leveling against a plumb line, I took them up to 25 then 45 then, in a fit of blind optimism, to 53 in/lbs and the parallax was just fine and the scope appears to be working perfectly including doing a scope tracking test with a tall target (the ZCO tracked perfectly...I mean, perfectly).

This was a while ago, I think there was more than one thread going on about this topic at the same time, and at almost 70 my memory isn't all that good (actually sucks tbh). But, this is the best of my recollection.

And yeah, I'd also love for Jeff and Ted to get on the phone together and issue some unambiguous guidance but for now I'm at 53 in/lbs and everything is fine.

Cheers

 

[Lesco Brandon]

Oh hell....this is coming back up again.

Not sure who it was, but there was a thread started by a guy who claimed that he kept breaking internal lenses in...after a good bit of pressure and figuring it out...a ZCO in ARC rings. I may have this confused a bit as it was a while ago and became quite a dust up. I think there was also someone who said that their parallax got bound up when tightened to 55 in/lbs (but not terribly sure of that).

Then it was brought up that between the manual and the "sticker" there were two different torque values recommended....I believe 20 and 25 in/lbs but don't quote me on this.

Then it was brought up that this torque spec most likely was in reference to traditional top/bottom split rings with 4-6 small screws for each ring vs the ARC with one big screw and how this changes the clamping force on the tube for a given torque value. That is, many small screws to...for example...20 in/lbs is more clamping force on the tube that a set of ARCs at the same torque value.

Oh, it went on and on and Jeff finally popped in and in sort of emulation of King Solomon suggested "splitting the baby" and just use 30 in/lbs. And it was allowed that scope manufactures cannot determine torque values for all configurations of rings.....something I don't really agree with. If there are a number of different configurations (2, 4, 6, and ARC), then address them all in a matrix (table, if you will) though really no scope manf does this.

I love ARC rings and use them with the 5-27 I have. Initially, I torqued to 53 in/lbs (Fix it Stick torque limiter) in one go and thought the parallax ring was bound. But, I backed those screws off at Warp 5 lightspeed that I really didn't confirm it and I may have grabbed the illumination ring. Like I said, I instantly backed them off so please do use this as a data point as its not totally clear what actually happened.

THEN, to took them to 25 and then 45 in/lbs and parallax was fine. Later, when leveling against a plumb line, I took them up to 25 then 45 then, in a fit of blind optimism, to 53 in/lbs and the parallax was just fine and the scope appears to be working perfectly including doing a scope tracking test with a tall target (the ZCO tracked perfectly...I mean, perfectly).

This was a while ago, I think there was more than one thread going on about this topic at the same time, and at almost 70 my memory isn't all that good (actually sucks tbh). But, this is the best of my recollection.

And yeah, I'd also love for Jeff and Ted to get on the phone together and issue some unambiguous guidance but for now I'm at 53 in/lbs and everything is fine.

Cheers

I personally spoke with ARC and they say anything less then 55 will result in slippage. The compressing force of the M clamp at 55 is equivalent to a spur at below 20. It’s the design of the ring. You can’t compare the M clamp to something else entirely. The in/lb just don’t equate in the same manner. Also ZCO recommended the ARC rings!

 

[Glassaholic]

Oh hell....this is coming back up again.

Not sure who it was, but there was a thread started by a guy who claimed that he kept breaking internal lenses in...after a good bit of pressure and figuring it out...a ZCO in ARC rings. I may have this confused a bit as it was a while ago and became quite a dust up. I think there was also someone who said that their parallax got bound up when tightened to 55 in/lbs (but not terribly sure of that).

Then it was brought up that between the manual and the "sticker" there were two different torque values recommended....I believe 20 and 25 in/lbs but don't quote me on this.

Then it was brought up that this torque spec most likely was in reference to traditional top/bottom split rings with 4-6 small screws for each ring vs the ARC with one big screw and how this changes the clamping force on the tube for a given torque value. That is, many small screws to...for example...20 in/lbs is more clamping force on the tube that a set of ARCs at the same torque value.

Oh, it went on and on and Jeff finally popped in and in sort of emulation of King Solomon suggested "splitting the baby" and just use 30 in/lbs. And it was allowed that scope manufactures cannot determine torque values for all configurations of rings.....something I don't really agree with. If there are a number of different configurations (2, 4, 6, and ARC), then address them all in a matrix (table, if you will) though really no scope manf does this.

I love ARC rings and use them with the 5-27 I have. Initially, I torqued to 53 in/lbs (Fix it Stick torque limiter) in one go and thought the parallax ring was bound. But, I backed those screws off at Warp 5 lightspeed that I really didn't confirm it and I may have grabbed the illumination ring. Like I said, I instantly backed them off so please do use this as a data point as its not totally clear what actually happened.

THEN, to took them to 25 and then 45 in/lbs and parallax was fine. Later, when leveling against a plumb line, I took them up to 25 then 45 then, in a fit of blind optimism, to 53 in/lbs and the parallax was just fine and the scope appears to be working perfectly including doing a scope tracking test with a tall target (the ZCO tracked perfectly...I mean, perfectly).

This was a while ago, I think there was more than one thread going on about this topic at the same time, and at almost 70 my memory isn't all that good (actually sucks tbh). But, this is the best of my recollection.

And yeah, I'd also love for Jeff and Ted to get on the phone together and issue some unambiguous guidance but for now I'm at 53 in/lbs and everything is fine.

Cheers

Thank you Baron, I was not aware of previous threads on this subject. Sounds like this has been discussed ad nauseum perhaps, but maybe with nothing definitive.

 

[LeftyJason]

@Baron23 you summed that up quite nicely. I've read the threads (even though I don't have an ARC mount yet or a zco). I think theyre cool stuff and it's nice to dream. Maybe one day. I'm right around half your age.

 

[Baron23]

@Baron23 you summed that up quite nicely. I've read the threads (even though I don't have an ARC mount yet or a zco). I think theyre cool stuff and it's nice to dream. Maybe one day. I'm right around half your age.

Thank you. And I can guarantee that when I was half my current age I could not buy a scope like this either.

You got time. Slow and steady and you’ll get there, my friend.

 

[Zane777]

Finally, my 840 is here.