Vortex RazorHD Gen III 6-36x56 vs NF ATACR 7-35x56

[TangoSierra916]

They exist, but no one shares them unless the brand being showcased is NF. Echo chambers are a heck of a drug.

Appreciate you sharing that, would love to see the paper target he shot at. I wouldn’t say it’s to the same level of torture as NF testing at least from their videos but the USO seemed to retain zero when he shot at steel so that’s good. There seems to always be tension around these “tests” and videos especially on forums I just find it interesting is all, and truly wish their were more visor just to watch. Not sure what the echo chambers is about but me personally I trust NF scopes, are they the best at everything of course not but I trust them and use them a wide variety of conditions and thought a torture test of multiple optics would be interesting.

 

[Islas82]

But how does the 6-36 S3 compare to the NF 7-35? pretty nice sale going on at MHS right now wouldn't mind trying one out. I was one of the ones that got screwed with shit Razor release turrets so I sold and never looked back.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

But how does the 6-36 S3 compare to the NF 7-35? pretty nice sale going on at MHS right now wouldn't mind trying one out. I was one of the ones that got screwed with shit Razor release turrets so I sold and never looked back.

G3 has better glass, features and reticle IMO. Ive got some time behind the 7-35 and class last week had one on each side of me. If they were the same price it would be a harder decision, but I would still take the the razor. One being 50-100% more expensive, its not even a comparison IMO.

 

[FuhQ]

But how does the 6-36 S3 compare to the NF 7-35? pretty nice sale going on at MHS right now wouldn't mind trying one out. I was one of the ones that got screwed with shit Razor release turrets so I sold and never looked back.

If I had to choose purely on glass performance alone between my LRP S3 6-36x56 and my ATACR F1 5-25x56… The nod goes to the Zeiss, simply because my eyes prefer the brighter glass and much larger internal FOV of the S3.

But as far as glass clarity, I’d say the ATACR might have a slight edge at full magnification. However, When looking through the ATACR, you get a very constricted internal FOV, and it feels like you’re looking through a paper towel roll… I really wish NF would fix this.

As for turrets…The ATACR wins that one. The S3 turrets are nice and smooth and definitive, but the NF turrets are even better.

Between the MIL-XT and the ZF-MRi reticles, I prefer the MIL-XT, but both are nice. If the Zeiss reticle was slightly thinner and didn’t have solid lines between the dots, it wouldn’t bother me, just saying…

 

[R_A_W]

much larger internal FOV of the S3.

But as far as glass clarity, I’d say the ATACR might have a slight edge at full magnification. However, When looking through the ATACR, you get a very constricted internal FOV, and it feels like you’re looking through a paper towel roll… I really wish NF would fix this.

This really only applies to the 525 ATACR, which is a second tier scope

re: S3 636 v. ATACR 735

FOV is essentially the same in the mid to upper magnification range

735 ATACR tunnels horribly below 8.5x, but not above. Above 8.5x it does not have a constricted internal FOV

S3 should have greater DOF, better parallax adjustment, & more forgiving eyebox

 

[Scopeye]

Has Zeiss fixed all of their teething issues with their LRP S3 and replacements? I recall reading a thread about shooters having to send theirs in for warranty twice to three times in less than a year.

 

[carbonbased]

Lol! I figured I’d goof off a bit.

Taken from the Open series on 9/15/23 here:

Precision Rifle Series - Home

The Precision Rifle Series is the preeminent rifle organization in the world, structuring a yearly points race for both the PRS Pro Bolt Gun Series and the PRS Regional Series. The PRS Championship Shooting Series is synonymous with precision rifle shooting.

www.precisionrifleseries.com

1. NF 7-35
2. Leupy 5-25 MK5
3. TT 5-25
4. TT 5-25
5. Leupy 5-25 MK5
6. Vortex 6-36
7. TT 5-25
8. Leupy 5-25 MK5
9. Vortex 6-36
10. NF 7-35
11. US Optics B-25 5-25x52
12. n/a
13. Vortex 4.5-27 (GigaChad lol. Ok that’s my scope)
14. Leupy 5-25 MK5
15. TT 5-25
16. NF 7-35
17. Leupy 5-25 MK5
18. n/a, but pic has a Kahles
19. Vortex 4.5-27 (GigaChadette)
20. Leupy 5-25 MK5

Totals, top 20:
6 Leupy 5-25 MK5
4 TT 5-25
3 NF 7-35
2 Vortex 4.5-27
2 Vortex 6-36
1 Kahles (probably)
1 US Optics B-25 5-25x52
1 Unknown

Totals, top 10:
3 Leupy 5-25 MK5
3 TT 5-25
2 NF 7-35
2 Vortex 6-36

Questions:
Why aren’t the Leupold shooters using the 7-35?

Analysis:
To be a GigaChad you use a Vortex 4.5-27.

Seriously:
Obviously, scope choice doesn’t mean poop (but obv Tasco-level optics not advised). And re: sponsorship.

And EBR-2c Master Race

==========================
For future tribesmen who visit this page, I’ve screenshotted the top 20 Open class PRS folks below. I was too lazy to copy/paste their names in my list.

View attachment 8227973
View attachment 8227974

Ok, wtf, I did it again! I must like pain.

11/11/24 taken from here: https://www.precisionrifleseries.com/

If you feel like it, double-check my counts. Cal over at the What the Pros Use page compiled his numbers in late spring or early June, whereas I just did mine now at the season’s end. So, there’s some discrepancy; plus he uses the top 25 for some reason.

This is a pain enough as it is…not changing.

Here’s 2024’s top 20 results, Open class, by scope listed in their profile or by the last scope they switched to:

1. TT 5-25 (n/a but listed here)
2. ZCO 840 (listed as NF 7-35, but @CSTactical says he switched. So did @Covertnoob5)
3. NF 7-35
4. TT 5-25
5. NF 7-35
6. Leupy 5-25 MK5
7. Listed as ZCO (unspecified; in July @CSTactical said it’s a 8-40 here which was also backed up by @Covertnoob5. In June it was listed as a TT 5-25 here so he switched)
8. TT 5-25
9. ZCO 840 as reported on by @Covertnoob5
10. NF 7-35
11. TT 5-25
12. Leupy 5-25 MK5
13. Kahles K525i 5-25 DLR (DLR bit provided by @Covertnoob5)
14. Leupy 5-25 MK5
15. Leupy 5-25 MK5
16. ZCO (unspecified; looks like a 5-27, confirmed by @Covertnoob5)
17. N/a listed (March IG pics with razor 6-36, Oct 31 IG pic with ZCO 5-27, which was confirmed by @Covertnoob5)
18. ZCO (unspecified; @Covertnoob5 says it’s a 5-27 but it sorta looks like a 8-40 here. I’ll go with noob’s report)
19. Kahles K525i 5-25 DLR (DLR bit provided by @Covertnoob5)
20. TT 5-25

Totals, top 20:
5 TT 5-25
4 Leupy 5-25 MK5
3 ZCO 8-40
3 ZCO 5-27
3 NF 7-35
2 Kahles K525i 5-25 DLR

Totals, top 10:
3 TT 5-25
3 NF 7-35
3 ZCO 8-40
1 Leupy 5-25 MK5


Analysis
The older NF 7-35 is still holding its own, especially in the top 10.

But keep in mind that NF, Leupold, Vortex, and ZCO (to a lesser extent) sponsor shooters. Apparently, TT does not.

Three-way tie between TT/NF/ZCO in the top 10. In the top twenty, ZCO has the most scopes at six, closely followed by TT at five.

Vortex 6-36 and 4.5-27 have disappeared from the top 20, along with US Optics. A fairly significant reduction in Leupy scopes too.

Notes:
TT 7-35 was new this year and didn’t seem to make it into the ranks. People didn’t list their Kahles model (plain or DLR) on either the PRS site or on the What The Pros Use site, but the info was crowdsourced.

 

[stanley_white]

Ok, wtf, I did it again! I must like pain.

11/11/24 taken from here: https://www.precisionrifleseries.com/

If you feel like it, double-check my counts.

Here’s 2024’s top 20 results:

1. TT 5-25 (n/a but listed here)
2. NF 7-35
3. NF 7-35
4. TT 5-25
5. NF 7-35
6. Leupy 5-25 MK5
7. Listed as ZCO (unspecified, in July @CSTactical says it’s a 8-40 here) but TT 5-25 is listed here (June)
8. TT 5-25
9. N/a but has a TT pic
10. NF 7-35
11. TT 5-25
12. Leupy 5-25 MK5
13. Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)
14. Leupy 5-25 MK5
15. Leupy 5-25 MK5
16. ZCO (unspecified but looks like a 5-27)
17. N/a listed (March IG pics with razor 6-36, Oct 31 IG pic with ZCO 5-27)
18. ZCO (unspecified, looks like a 8-40 here)
19. Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)
20. TT 5-25

Totals, top 20:
6 TT 5-25 (one or two may be iffy)
4 NF 7-35
4 Leupy 5-25 MK5
2 ZCO 8-40
2 ZCO 5-27
2 Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)

Totals, top 10:
4 TT 5-25 (one or two may be iffy)
4 NF 7-35
1 Leupy 5-25 MK5
1 ZCO 8-40

Analysis
The older NF 7-35 still holds its own.

Vortex 6-36 and 4.5-27 disappear from the top 20., along with US Optics. A fairly significant reduction in Leupy scopes too.

Notes:
TT 7-35 was new this year and didn’t seem to make it into the ranks. People didn’t list their Kahles model (plain or DLR) on either the PRS site or on the What The Pros Use site.

View attachment 8544386
View attachment 8544387

Thank you for doing this.

-Stan

 

[nrspence]

Very interesting. Not surprising the TT is the top scope. I always liked the 7-35 NF ATACR, and for the price on ExpertVoice currently hard to beat.

 

[GenericBadGuy]

Someone was suggesting TT is coming out with another scope for next year. It will be interesting to see what that looks like.

 

[CSTactical]

Ok, wtf, I did it again! I must like pain.

11/11/24 taken from here: https://www.precisionrifleseries.com/

If you feel like it, double-check my counts. Cal over at the What the Pros Use page compiled his numbers in late spring or early June, whereas I just did mine now at the season’s end. So, there’s some discrepancy; plus he uses the top 25 for some reason.

This is a pain enough as it is…not changing.

Here’s 2024’s top 20 results:

1. TT 5-25 (n/a but listed here)
2. NF 7-35
3. NF 7-35
4. TT 5-25
5. NF 7-35
6. Leupy 5-25 MK5
7. Listed as ZCO (unspecified, in July @CSTactical said it’s a 8-40 here — but was listed in June here as a TT 5-25)
8. TT 5-25
9. N/a but has a TT pic
10. NF 7-35
11. TT 5-25
12. Leupy 5-25 MK5
13. Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)
14. Leupy 5-25 MK5
15. Leupy 5-25 MK5
16. ZCO (unspecified but looks like a 5-27)
17. N/a listed (March IG pics with razor 6-36, Oct 31 IG pic with ZCO 5-27)
18. ZCO (unspecified, looks like a 8-40 here)
19. Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)
20. TT 5-25

Totals, top 20:
6 TT 5-25 (one or two may be iffy)
4 NF 7-35
4 Leupy 5-25 MK5
2 ZCO 8-40 (one might be a 5-27)
2 ZCO 5-27
2 Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)

Totals, top 10:
4 TT 5-25 (one or two may be iffy)
4 NF 7-35
1 Leupy 5-25 MK5
1 ZCO 8-40

Analysis
The older NF 7-35 still holds its own.

Vortex 6-36 and 4.5-27 disappear from the top 20, along with US Optics. A fairly significant reduction in Leupy scopes too.

Notes:
TT 7-35 was new this year and didn’t seem to make it into the ranks. People didn’t list their Kahles model (plain or DLR) on either the PRS site or on the What The Pros Use site.

View attachment 8544386
View attachment 8544387

2. Kahl Harmon used a ZC840 M1X NLE

7. Austin Orgain ZC840 M1X NLE

 

[carbonbased]

2. Kahl Harmon used a ZC840 M1X NLE

7. Austin Orgain ZC840 M1X NLE



8. Jeff Guerry might have switched to the ZC840 M1X NLE as well

Ok, I’ll update #2 (#7 was already counted for the ZCO 840), but until there is further confirmation I’m leaving #8.

 

[CSTactical]

From ZCO’s Facebook https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...uTJvLtK4Sl&id=100063485173776&mibextid=cr9u03


We had the opportunity to once again watch top shooters from around the world compete, this time for the coveted Golden Bullet at the 2024 Precision Rifle Series Finale near Mountain Home, Idaho. Like all great matches, there were highs and lows, but it was a fantastic event with even more fantastic participants. We’d like to thank Brian Neace and Seth Howard for the tremendous amount of effort they put into making the match happen, as well as the entire Precision Rifle Series crew for their hard work. We’d also like to congratulate all the shooters who braved the cold—and at one point, freezing rain—to compete, and give special congratulations to the following shooters who were running Zero Compromise Optics...

- Kahl Harmon, 2nd Place Open Overall Series, 3rd Place Overall Finale
- Trygve Sowa, Top Junior Overall Series, 2nd Place Top Junior Overall Finale
- Chris Garcia, Top Gas Gun Overall Series & Finale
- Gage Caples, 2nd Place Top Junior Series, Junior Overall Finale
- Austin Orgain, 7th Overall Series
- Chris Kutalek, 9th Place Open Overall Series, 6th Place Overall Finale
- Keith Rudasill, 2nd Place Production Overall Series

#ZeroCompromiseOptic #PrecisionRifleSeries #UNCOMPROMISING #Congratulations

 

[carbonbased]

2. Kahl Harmon used a ZC840 M1X NLE

7. Austin Orgain ZC840 M1X NLE



8. Jeff Guerry might have switched to the ZC840 M1X NLE as well

Do NF and ZCO sponser individual PRS shooters? Obv Leupold and Vortex do, and I’ve heard TT does not.

 

[CSTactical]

Not sure about NF, but ZCO does not.

 

[Secant]

Do NF and ZCO sponser individual PRS shooters? Obv Leupold and Vortex do, and I’ve heard TT does not.

NF sponsors individual shooters (like Austin Buschman) and sponsors influencers (like Muley Freak & some tactical games folks).

 

[NateVA]

NF sponsors individual shooters (like Austin Buschman) and sponsors influencers (like Muley Freak & some tactical games folks).

Them (and TS Customs) sponsoring Muley Freak after multiple poaching/trespassing incidents is a bit odd.

 

[Secant]

Them (and TS Customs) sponsoring Muley Freak after multiple poaching/trespassing incidents is a bit odd.

I don't think it's that odd for them. NF looks to spend a ton on marketing and sponsorships (PRS, F-Class, hunting influencers, tactical games influencers, instructors, forums, magazine ads, etc). I haven't followed it closely (or really at all), but wasn't TS was a sponsor pre-poaching, and NF picked up MF post poaching?

Someone was suggesting TT is coming out with another scope for next year. It will be interesting to see what that looks like.

I think @MOUNTIC had mentioned that a 4-20 was on deck after the 7-35 rolled out? Maybe I read/hard that somewhere else.

 

[NateVA]

I don't think it's that odd for them. NF looks to spend a ton on marketing and sponsorships (PRS, F-Class, hunting influencers, tactical games influencers, instructors, forums, magazine ads, etc).

I'm definitely cool with them doing marketing and sponsorships. I happen to think it's very cool for them to sponsor hunters especially. There just have to be other ones they can do instead of people with long records of poaching and trespassing.

I haven't followed it closely (or really at all), but wasn't TS was a sponsor pre-poaching, and NF picked up MF post poaching?

I'm definitely not sure on the timeline either. Travis is well known enough I figure he could sponsor just about anyone though, same with NF. Soon as the first court case popped up I would have thought they'd not want to be associated with Muley Freak.

 

[koshkin]

Not sure about NF, but ZCO does not.

@Covertnoob5 would you mind chiming in on that?

 

[Covertnoob5]

Ok, wtf, I did it again! I must like pain.

11/11/24 taken from here: https://www.precisionrifleseries.com/

If you feel like it, double-check my counts. Cal over at the What the Pros Use page compiled his numbers in late spring or early June, whereas I just did mine now at the season’s end. So, there’s some discrepancy; plus he uses the top 25 for some reason.

This is a pain enough as it is…not changing.

Here’s 2024’s top 20 results:

1. TT 5-25 (n/a but listed here)
2. ZCO 840 (listed as NF 7-35, but @CSTactical says he switched)
3. NF 7-35
4. TT 5-25
5. NF 7-35
6. Leupy 5-25 MK5
7. Listed as ZCO (unspecifie; in July @CSTactical said it’s a 8-40 here — but in June it was listed as a TT 5-25 here)
8. TT 5-25
9. N/a but has a TT pic
10. NF 7-35
11. TT 5-25
12. Leupy 5-25 MK5
13. Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)
14. Leupy 5-25 MK5
15. Leupy 5-25 MK5
16. ZCO (unspecified; looks like a 5-27)
17. N/a listed (March IG pics with razor 6-36, Oct 31 IG pic with ZCO 5-27)
18. ZCO (unspecified; looks like a 8-40 here)
19. Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)
20. TT 5-25

Totals, top 20:
6 TT 5-25 (one or two may be iffy)
4 Leupy 5-25 MK5
3 NF 7-35
3 ZCO 8-40 (one might be a 5-27)
2 ZCO 5-27
2 Kahles K525i 5-25 (might be DLR)

Totals, top 10:
4 TT 5-25 (one or two may be iffy)
3 NF 7-35
2 ZCO 8-40
1 Leupy 5-25 MK5


Analysis
The older NF 7-35 still holds its own.

Vortex 6-36 and 4.5-27 disappear from the top 20, along with US Optics. A fairly significant reduction in Leupy scopes too.

Notes:
TT 7-35 was new this year and didn’t seem to make it into the ranks. People didn’t list their Kahles model (plain or DLR) on either the PRS site or on the What The Pros Use site.

View attachment 8544386
View attachment 8544387

Do NF and ZCO sponser individual PRS shooters? Obv Leupold and Vortex do, and I’ve heard TT does not.

Couple corrections/confirmations for you.

2) Kahl Harmon - ZCO 840 1x 10 mil NLE
7) Austin orgain - ZCO 840 1x 10 mil NLE
9) Chris Kutalek - ZCO 840
13) Corson piper - Kahles 525i DLR
17) Andy Slde - ZCO 527
18) Keith Rudasill - Leupold MK5 525 for the finale and most matches as he shoots production class. When he shoots open ZCO 527
19) Matt Caruso - Kahles 328i DLR


NF does in fact sponsor some PRS guys. Not as many as they used too but they do including Austin.
ZCO does not fully sponsor any shooters nor does TT.

 

[Covertnoob5]

@Covertnoob5 would you mind chiming in on that?

Hadn’t seen this thread take this direction. Just provided a few updates/confirmations.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Total count is (for the finale)
TT - 5
ZCO - 5
Leupold - 5
NF - 3
Kahles - 2

@carbonbased

 

[carbonbased]

Total count is (for the finale)
TT - 5
ZCO - 5
Leupold - 5
NF - 3
Kahles - 2

@carbonbased

Ok, I updated the post you bastards lol. Also redid the analysis.

I’m not counting the Finale scopes…that’s just one match, the last match, right? Maybe I’ve got it wrong; I’m not a competitor. LMK.

Not sure what interest there is for just one match.

I was just counting what they say they used for the year, which I take it as their preferred scope as no one switched to a brand that sponsors people. So if they switched one match before the end, I count that scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

Total count is (for the finale)
TT - 5
ZCO - 5
Leupold - 5
NF - 3
Kahles - 2

@carbonbased

What's interesting is that the TT 5-25 was introduced circa 2014 but rarely was seen at this level in the top ranks, now 10 years later it is used pretty heavily by some of the best shooters. The Gen2 XR reticle was really good for it's time so I don't think it would be that, the optical formula has not changed, so what changed in the past 10 years to move TT towards the top among PRS competitors? Did it just take that long for the shooters to realize what advantages good glass offers in the sport, or?

 

[Covertnoob5]

Ok, I updated the post you bastards lol. Also redid the analysis.

I’m not counting the Finale scopes…that’s just one match, the last match, right? Maybe I’ve got it wrong; I’m not a competitor. LMK.

Not sure what interest there is for just one match.

I was just counting what they say they used for the year, which I take it as their preferred scope as no one switched to a brand that sponsors people. So if they switched one match before the end, I count that scope.

All the people that I noted switched for several matches before the finale.

ETA: Keith Rudasill being the only one that kinda goes back and forth. Most of his matches this year were production class so MK5 but a couple were open class ZCO. So not sure how you want to place that. I’d personally count that toward Leupold because he shot more production than open.

 

[carbonbased]

All the people that I noted switched for several matches before the finale.

ETA: Keith Rudasill being the only one that kinda goes back and forth. Most of his matches this year were production class so MK5 but a couple were open class ZCO. So not sure how you want to place that. I’d personally count that toward Leupold because he shot more production than open.

Yep. I had implemented your recommendations…hopefully you can see that and LMK if I did it correctly.

I’m just doing Open class, not Production. I’m just vaguely interested in this and am not a competitor.

I wish Cal at What the Pros Use PRS blog would break it down sorta like I did. He kinda spreads stuff out and you have to read to see what the higher tier guys used. Unless you want to count tiny blue rectangles lol.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Yep. I had implemented your recommendations…hopefully you can see that and LMK if I did it correctly.

I’m just doing Open class, not Production. I’m just vaguely interested in this and am not a competitor.

I wish Cal at What the Pros Use PRS blog would break it down sorta like I did. He kinda spreads stuff out and you have to read to see what the higher tier guys used. Unless you want to count tiny blue rectangles lol.

Saw it! Got it I wasn’t sure what the route was for the breakdown. I just got tagged and chimed in. I do agree that counting the blue shades isn’t super fun lol at least different colors would be nice. Top 10 = red 11-20 = blue 20-30= yellow etc.

 

[Thump_rrr]

What's interesting is that the TT 5-25 was introduced circa 2014 but rarely was seen at this level in the top ranks, now 10 years later it is used pretty heavily by some of the best shooters. The Gen2 XR reticle was really good for it's time so I don't think it would be that, the optical formula has not changed, so what changed in the past 10 years to move TT towards the top among PRS competitors? Did it just take that long for the shooters to realize what advantages good glass offers in the sport, or?

I think that it took a while for people to get the courage to spend top dollar with a company that you’re not sure will be around tomorrow.

I know it took me a while and I’m Canadian.

As for why some people go for the Vortex over the Nightforce.

Last year my shooting partner purchased a Gen 3 Razor 6-36. He was debating between that and the ATACR 7-35. He preferred the turrets on the Vortex. We compared the glass on a hot and hazy day and they were nearly identical. They both fell short of my TT525P and my S&B PMII 5-25 when compared at the same magnification.

We went to the range to sight it in and set the zero stop, which I like very much.

At one point he walked away from his bench leaving the butt of the rifle resting on his squeeze bag. The rifle ended up falling, hitting the concrete with the parallax knob and ending up on the elevation turret. The scope was done.
He called up Vortex the following morning and told them exactly what happened.
He was sent a shipping label and 3 weeks later he received a brand new scope.

I can guarantee you that I wouldn’t get the same service from Tangent Theta or Schmidt & Bender.

For thr hell of it I calculated what it would cost me to ship my TT fully insured back to Armament Technologies. It was a little under $300 for the one way trip. For some people just the peace of mind is a big enough factor to buy the Vortex.

I can’t tell you what Nightforce, ZCO, Khales, or Steiner would do.

 

[NateVA]

I can guarantee you that I wouldn’t get the same service from Tangent Theta or Schmidt & Bender.

For thr hell of it I calculated what it would cost me to ship my TT fully insured back to Armament Technologies. It was a little under $300 for the one way trip. For some people just the peace of mind is a big enough factor to buy the Vortex.

I have a Razor 6-36 and just got an ATACR 7-35 (haven't even used it yet). I addressed this concern by just putting the ATACR on my Valuable Personal Property insurance with USAA (not sure if other insurance companies do guns/scopes). So NF warranties mechanical issues anyway and for about $30/year (for the scope specifically) the insurance covers damage, loss, and theft. Hell all of my rifles/optics and even my tripod are on the policy since no one's warranty covers theft/loss.

 

[carbonbased]

ZCO does not fully sponsor any shooters nor does TT.

Ok, just rereading this page. I italicized and bolded the bit that I just noticed and had a question about.

Can you explain that a little further?

 

[Covertnoob5]

I mean yes and no. I don’t want to put people’s personal details or arrangements out there but some companies will do full sponsorships which includes free product help with match costs etc. ZCO is too small a company to do that kind of stuff. But they can do what they can to help and do what makes sense for both parties.

 

[carbonbased]

I mean yes and no. I don’t want to put people’s personal details or arrangements out there but some companies will do full sponsorships which includes free product help with match costs etc. ZCO is too small a company to do that kind of stuff. But they can do what they can to help and do what makes sense for both parties.

Ok, fair enough. I will amend my analysis a little to add that explanation, as I think it’s important to know what scopes people pick with zero help. Not picking on ZCO, just like full disclosure.

Thanks for the pretty forthcoming response, given you are sort of in the mix.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Ok, fair enough. I will amend my analysis a little to add that explanation, as I think it’s important to know what scopes people pick with zero help. Not picking on ZCO, just like full disclosure.

Thanks for the pretty forthcoming response, given you are sort of in the mix.

No problem! What I will say is the guys that switched to ZCO aren’t going to get turned down by any company they approach because they’re the top of the top so I’m 100% positive they didn’t pick ZCO because it’s “the best deal” in terms of what they’re getting. There’s other companies that would have much more lucrative offers.

 

[cyranis]

There doesn't seem to be a control group to baseline the data.

I don't see there being a way to filter the bias out of the system. - these are a tiny subset of shooters some of which have sponsorships and or may have gotten large discounts one way or another.

The data collection method is troubling from a research point of view. Scraping and word of mouth aren't exactly solid data collection techniques.


While the data is interesting, I'm not sure what significant analysis is even possible.

 

[carbonbased]

There doesn't seem to be a control group to baseline the data.

I don't see there being a way to filter the bias out of the system. - these are a tiny subset of shooters some of which have sponsorships and or may have gotten large discounts one way or another.

The data collection method is troubling from a research point of view. Scraping and word of mouth aren't exactly solid data collection techniques.


While the data is interesting, I'm not sure what significant analysis is even possible.

Hoooo boy!

Don’t think about it too much. It’s not a science thing; it’s a human rumors/trends/prefs thing. People often make decisions on the fly with less-than perfect info. We do the best we can with the time/resources we have.

It really doesn’t matter anyway, one can shoot well with any of the upper-end scopes.

Assuming the data is correct (I cannot stand saying “the data are correct”[1]) my bigger-picture takeaways are:

1. Why has Vortex has disappeared from the top twenty?
2. Sponsorships have something to do with a scope’s placement (except TT), but they must meet a minimum quality. Otherwise the pros wouldn’t use them.
3. Assuming #2 is correct, then the older NF 7-35 is still good enough, which is interesting.
4. People are apparently spending their own money on TT.

1] Cribbed from this Reddit thread:

“Both usages are technically correct.​

​

In scientific context it is indeed ‘data are’, as data is the plural of datum.​

​

The reason ‘data is’, sounds more ‘correct’ to most, is that in the non-scientific context, ‘data’ is used as a singular mass noun, to replace the word ‘information’.”​

 

[cyranis]

Hoooo boy!
[*]Otherwise the pros wouldn’t use them.

Faulty logic. There are myriad reasons, one of them being base tribalism. Pretty much everything in this sport is 1% hard data and 99% vibe feelycrafts.

By all means, do you're thing, I'm just saying from a data/research perspective, this whole exercise is giggle worthy. Scientific method, whuts dat?

People often make decisions on the fly with less-than perfect info. We do the best we can with the time/resources we have.

It really doesn’t matter anyway, one can shoot well with any of the upper-end scopes.

If it doesn't matter, then why do it?
And if you have done it, then don't you bear some responsibility for what it's used for?

People are making large financial choices, based on whatever information they can find, which often leads them here.

 

[carbonbased]

Faulty logic. There are myriad reasons, one of them being base tribalism. Pretty much everything in this sport is 1% hard data and 99% vibe feelycrafts.

By all means, do you're thing, I'm just saying from a data/research perspective, this whole exercise is giggle worthy. Scientific method, whuts dat?

You are, of course, correct in some logician-type way. And autistic (and I’m not using that as a slam).

I hope you don’t think this was posited as an actual scientific exercise? If so, apologies.

 

[cyranis]

If it looks like a duck, and talks like a duck. Am I wrong in assuming you are trying to present a duck?

It's cool, autistic in this usage seem to mean smarter than I am, also not a slam..

 

[carbonbased]

If it doesn't matter, then why do it?
And if you have done it, then don't you bear some responsibility for what it's used for?

People are making large financial choices, based on whatever information they can find, which often leads them here.

I see you revised your post as I was typing. No problem, that happens to me all of the time; I’m a habitual “revisor.”

lol man, it is rather painfully obvious you are autistic as heck. And that’s ok, but you are missing out on the human bullshitting-around-the-water cooler thing that’s going on here.

I mean, this meme is pretty much dead on:

 

[cyranis]

There are far less wordy ways to say you aren't trying to produce a credible account and are just jaw flapping. If that's what you're going for fine, then make that clear.

 

[carbonbased]

There are far less wordy ways to say you aren't trying to produce a credible account and are just jaw flapping. If that's what you're going for fine, then make that clear.

 

[stanley_white]

Thank you for doing what you do @carbonbased.

I appreciate it as being informative, not proscriptive.

Vortex usage down I would guess because the locking turrets bug people in a PRS context.

TT usage up I would guess for folks who like the JTAC reticle.

-Stan

 

[jbuck88]

Who knows what science stuff there is, however everyone's eyes are different as well.

I have a few g3's, nx8, nxs, pm2's, ATACR's, g2 Razor, etc.

For me the ATACR was easier to get behind then the g3. The glass difference in all of those scopes are close enough to be insignificant for me. The glass in the ATACR is definitely a little better then the NXS, but not enough to make a difference between seeing and not seeing a target.

My favorite rifle wears a "Garbage" ATACR 5-25. The difference in glass isn't noticeable enough to warrant changing.

As long as they track reliably and hold zero I will run any of them.

 

[L0ngRnge]

Shot many of both, currently still own ATACR. ATACR is the better scope of the two.