Rifle Scopes ZCO 2-16

[beetroot]

General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube. Edited to add: length not longer than 13 inches.

Did I miss anything?

Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?) Developing a new optic doesn't happen in 6 months for us, lots of much more detailed analysis of everything to do as well as cost of development to budget for.

Sounds good, you already have the 4-20 as a mid range (magnification wise) optic, I think it'd be a mistake to go too high on the magnification range.

Pick a FOV spec you want on the low end (say 50ft at 100y) and fit the low end magnification to than, then go as high as the design allows.
Say 2.5-14ish.

30mm tube would be nice but not a must have.

Just make sure the reticle is sized right, no point having nice thin lines optimized for 20x if the scope tops out at 14x.
Probably .06mil main stadia lines and some sort of centee illumination that makes the low end like a LVPO or Leupold Firedot would be fantastic.

 

[smarcus]

A short, light 2.5-15x44ish would work great on a AR DMR style rifle also.

 

[jakelly]

I just want to take a moment to say THANK YOU to all of the members that have commented in this thread and have supported ZCO over the last few years. Your opinion is being heard it is not falling on deaf ears.
Although it takes time to develop a best in class optic, good things come to those that wait. Your help contributing to this new design will ultimately help ensure a superior product.

Thank you again from the entire ZCO staff world wide

Thank you guys for listening. Whether or not it ever happens, it’s nice to be heard.

 

[jakelly]

For all the guys saying 25-28ozs and 34mm tubes, how exactly does that differ from a 4-16 NF? Or a 3-12 Kahles? Or the old school 3-15 NF? Or the 3-12 LRHS?

For this scope to command the price tag a project like this will warrant (premium), IMO it needs to be:
1- 20oz or less, shoot for 16.
2- Excellent reticle utility across mag range.
3- Excellent optical design and glass performance. FOV, DOF, edge to edge clarity, low light performance, CA, the works.
4- 10mil turret double turn or triple. ZS
5- Illumination. Center point only is likely fine.

There’s some decent options out there, but nobody has really gone after this with an original design since March. As a reference the most popular hunting scope ever made is the Leupold 3.5-10x40 VXIII it’s 12.6 oz.

 

[Secant]

I’ll go out on a limb and say that leupy might be as popular as it is because of its price point, not necessarily feature set.

For me, a 420’H’ at 27 oz would be taking basically everything I like about the current 4-20 and dropping half a pound to better rationalize mounting on a lightweight rifle that I spent a bunch of money on to drop weight. Exactly the same as Tangent Theta with their TT315P at 36oz and their TT315M at 28oz. It would be interesting to know the sales data of the Tangent variants. Maybe I’m way off thinking a lighter weight 4-20 might outsell the current version.

 

[ormandj]

For all the guys saying 25-28ozs and 34mm tubes, how exactly does that differ from a 4-16 NF? Or a 3-12 Kahles? Or the old school 3-15 NF? Or the 3-12 LRHS?

For this scope to command the price tag a project like this will warrant (premium), IMO it needs to be:
1- 20oz or less, shoot for 16.
2- Excellent reticle utility across mag range.
3- Excellent optical design and glass performance. FOV, DOF, edge to edge clarity, low light performance, CA, the works.
4- 10mil turret double turn or triple. ZS
5- Illumination. Center point only is likely fine.

There’s some decent options out there, but nobody has really gone after this with an original design since March. As a reference the most popular hunting scope ever made is the Leupold 3.5-10x40 VXIII it’s 12.6 oz.

I'd love lighter too with the caveat that optical quality matters more to me (point 3 of your list). That's how the ZCOs differ from the plethora of already available scopes on the market in the other classes they compete in, in addition to the quality/CS/turret feel. If they can maintain the optical quality of the 420/527s I own, but in a lighter package, I'd be very happy, especially if they could hit the weights you're asking for.

I feel like a tradeoff has to be made somewhere; I'm just voicing my support for a little more weight (but not as much as a 420, obviously) to have better quality, if that's required. If money is the tradeoff and quality/low weight can both be achieved, then my bank account is ready, and that's my ideal.

I've got the 527 and 420 on a few rifles and the scope adds a huge chunk of weight. Having something lighter that's still usable for longer ranges would be ideal. I'm not a 'game' shooter, but more a field shooter, so the 20lb rifle/scope combo isn't my cup of tea. Trying to get below 10lbs for a fully kitted out suppressed rifle without resorting to titanium actions and thin profile CF barrels is near impossible with the current scopes on top (I know, I've tried).

A nice 2-16 or something along those lines that's a pound+ lighter than the 4-20 would be wonderful (like you're suggesting), but even 10oz less would be a huge win. To be completely honest, though, I'd actually love a lighter weight 4-20 that wasn't quite as tank-like as the existing 420, as @Secant mentioned. I like 20x when out at 1000 yards, but if a 2-16 saved an extra 8oz over the 4-20, then I'd take the 2-16.

 

[Squibbler]

For all the guys saying 25-28ozs and 34mm tubes, how exactly does that differ from a 4-16 NF? Or a 3-12 Kahles? Or the old school 3-15 NF? Or the 3-12 LRHS?

For this scope to command the price tag a project like this will warrant (premium), IMO it needs to be:
1- 20oz or less, shoot for 16.
2- Excellent reticle utility across mag range.
3- Excellent optical design and glass performance. FOV, DOF, edge to edge clarity, low light performance, CA, the works.
4- 10mil turret double turn or triple. ZS
5- Illumination. Center point only is likely fine.

There’s some decent options out there, but nobody has really gone after this with an original design since March. As a reference the most popular hunting scope ever made is the Leupold 3.5-10x40 VXIII it’s 12.6 oz.

The fudds already have their Swarovski's,... we want a lightweight ZCO. I'm all for less weight, but at a certain point you will end up changing the feature set just to reduce weight. You will end up with something other than a "ZCO".

 

[jakelly]

The fudds already have their Swarovski's,... we want a lightweight ZCO. I'm all for less weight, but at a certain point you will end up changing the feature set just to reduce weight. You will end up with something other than a "ZCO".

Fudds aren’t the only ones hunting. There’s a lot more guys that want to extend their lethal distance. Only one company has really tried to appeal to this hole in the marketplace; Bushnell with the LRHS. It has become one of their most successful and respected product lines.

If they (ZCO) compete against the 4-16 NF I think the response will be pretty underwhelming. If they go after the March 3-24 I think the market is going to be surprisingly strong.

 

[Squibbler]

Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting.

Everyone can agree/disagree with me, but I have to at least state my opinion. I'd completely disagree with a "center illumination only" for this scope.

Where I would agree with "center illumination only" is for PBR shooting. Being able to access my center quickly and cleanly gives the advantage for POA/POI. Commonly with a good second focal place.

Where I would disagree is when holdovers come into play beyond PBR. You need to be able to identify your drops and windage in all conditions and scenarios. Advantage FFP with fully illuminated reticle.

Another great example is clip-on usage with a gun mounted LRF. Most commonly holdovers are all that is used. Being able to identify landmarks on your reticle becomes essential. Again, a fully illuminated reticle gives advantage.

Ideally in my mind a dual illuminated reticle would be another feature set that would set ZCO apart from the competition (if electro-engineering possible). A switch that could give the shooter 3 options.
First option: illuminated Center only for PBR shooting
Second option: fully illuminated reticle for holdover usage
Third option: A non-illuminated center to the 1mil mark. Then at 1mil and beyond would be illuminated.

---Let me explain third option: this option would be specifically for lowlight conditions with day optic ONLY. Shooting a lot in lowlight situations and in the dark, illumination usually ends up obscuring the target. An illuminated reticle with a non-illuminated center (to 1mil), the shooter could "box" in the target while still being able to maintain good visual. IMO this would be ideal for lowlight conditions--being able to track target easier with advantage of illuminated portion for reference.

 

[Squibbler]

Fudds aren’t the only ones hunting. There’s a lot more guys that want to extend their lethal distance. Only one company has really tried to appeal to this hole in the marketplace; Bushnell with the LRHS. It has become one of their most successful and respected product lines.

If they (ZCO) compete against the 4-16 NF I think the response will be pretty underwhelming. If they go after the March 3-24 I think the market is going to be surprisingly strong.

Not disagreeing here ---Lighter the better. At some point though, there is an "engineering impossibility". All I'm saying is please don't change it so that it's unrecognizable to the ZCO brand.

 

[Moose]

Not disagreeing here ---Lighter the better. At some point though, there is an "engineering impossibility". All I'm saying is please don't change it so that it's unrecognizable to the ZCO brand.

That is right on the money I want to put this scope on my rifle look true it and say it is as stunning as my ZC 4x20.

 

[ma smith]

IMHO scope to go after is the NF 2.5-10x24,
ie, you want both light and bombproof,

not overly complicated...highly usable.
less is more with this thing.

 

[Squibbler]

Favorites:
TT Gen3 XR
March FML TR1
Minox MR4
NF Mil-XT
Vortex EBR-7c

looking at the above you start to catch a theme - Christmas tree “dots”. I do not like busy trees or thick horizontal tree lines. Keep in mind I said “I do not like” which doesn’t mean I won’t use, I have used plenty of thick reticles effectively.

Reticle is very much personal preference and just because I prefer vanilla doesn’t mean that chocolate can’t be someone else’s favorite.

Posting some MPCT3 pics for you with various backgrounds. These dots don't obscure.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Posting some MPCT3 pics for you with various backgrounds. These dots don't obscure.

View attachment 7684274
View attachment 7684275
View attachment 7684276
View attachment 7684277

Could you post some of these same images when viewed at minimum power?

 

[CSTactical]

Could you post some of these same images when viewed at minimum power?

Rifle Scopes - Reticles: thru scope pics! ZCO, TT, NF, S&B, Minox, Horus, Steiner, Kahles, March, Vortex, and More!

Does anyone have h2cmr?

www.snipershide.com

 

[ma smith]

AFAIK the ZCO does a better job than many others of not completly dissolving at the centre
-- especially given that its optimized for the 4-20x zoom range

I took the liberty to show the ZCO with the original MPCT3
and one revised slighty to show a bottom post vs top post design.

(i'm sure not everyone is the same on these things).

The new ZCO MPCT 3x is moving in the direction of the latter,
but this is just a generic mock up for illustrative purposes,
not a specific mock up of the 3x

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Rifle Scopes - Reticles: thru scope pics! ZCO, TT, NF, S&B, Minox, Horus, Steiner, Kahles, March, Vortex, and More!

Does anyone have h2cmr?

www.snipershide.com

Thanks CS and ma smith those are very helpful. That 4-20 ZCO sure is sweet. It might be the one I go with for my upcoming personal “ultimate hunting rifle” that I’ve been wanting to build for years now. It would go on something like this from TS Customs.

 

[Squibbler]

Could you post some of these same images when viewed at minimum power?

 

[chase723]

AFAIK the ZCO does a better job than many others of not completly dissolving at the centre
-- especially given that its optimized for the 4-20x zoom range

I took the liberty to show the ZCO with the original MPCT3
and one revised slighty to show a bottom post vs top post design.

(i'm sure not everyone is the same on these things).



View attachment 7684511

The new ZCO MPCT 3x is moving in the direction of the latter,
but this is just a generic mock up for illustrative purposes,
not a specific mock up of the 3x

I wish it was more like the MSR2 where it only has the thicker stadia on the sides. Don’t get me wrong, I love the MPCT3 but I don’t see the point or need for thick vertical ones. While they only obscure a small portion of the image, once they’re removed it instantly improves the apparent field of view…but while we’re at it on the wish list, maybe have 2 “stages” of illumination. The first stage where you only have the brightly illuminated center dot and then a second which illuminates the whole tree via a rheostat like it currently does.

 

[Jdfd556]

The MPVO territory is ripe for some fresh blood, too many LPVO’s to compete with unless you OEM like ATI did.

You want specifics, okay, let’s get specific :
A 2-16x42 FFP with 30mm tube that weighs under 23oz. Parts made in your same facility in Austria with glass that performs at the level of the current ZCO line with wide angle eyepiece providing enormous FOV but not too wide so you limit edge distortion . A short body design but not too short so you don’t compromise eyebox, DOF and parallax forgiveness (something the NX8 struggles with mightily). Turrets that have click feel more in line with Tangent Theta and only 10 mil per rev. Same illumination module that you have in current ZCO with auto shutoff and movement turn on, etc. New reticle that works at the bottom end of magnification as well as the top end without being too thick at top or too thin at bottom with something that helps draw the eye to center when at low mags, tree is essential but not with thick horizontal tree lines, use just dots in tree keeping the view clean throughout mag range. Include a gold certificate in 10 boxes like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, lucky winners get a personal tour of ZCO facilities in Idaho and get to participate in assembly and get a selfie with Nick and Jeff, a competition ensues with the lucky ten using a custom SPR/DMR style AR with the 2-16x42 ZCO mounted, shooter to get the most first shot hits on various distance targets out to 800 yards wins the rifle

Was that specific enough?

Pretty much this but with a couple tweaks. I use an offset T2 anyways so a 1X LPVO doesn't do much for me. With that being said, I have a NF Atacr 1-8 and really like it. I'd take a 2.5x or 3x on the low end to avoid any problems with a 8x zoom ratio. Weight is a priority for me, but not to the point where it compromises durability of the optic, I think a 30 or 34mm main tube would work well for this. I personally think if this gets put out, It would be the best SPR/DMR optic out there for an AR-15/AR-10. I'll still buy a 4-20 though!

 

[chase723]

@gebhardt02 is this something that we should keep on our radar? Cause I could use one right meow.

 

[Big Ern]

Me too.

 

[CoriolisEffect]

I'll take a crack at this as someone considering a 420 for a large gas gun. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that ZCO likes to stick with the ~5x erector (with the 527 actually being 5.4) so my ideal ZCO would be:

Zoom: 3-16 (5.33 erector so seemingly in the range ZCO is okay with)
Reticle: FFP (MPCT2 and 3)
Tube: 34mm for more mounting options
OAL: <12.5"
Weight: <30oz
IQ & CA on par with 420/527
MSRP: ~$3500

I tried to keep the parameters within a realm of feasibility while keeping it similar to the vein in which ZCO products currently live.

 

[Burdy]

I really wish they would put that MPCT3 in a 30 tube, 21 ounce 2.5-13.5x and I honestly don't care the cost.

 

[Bakwa]

I'll take a crack at this as someone considering a 420 for a large gas gun. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that ZCO likes to stick with the ~5x erector (with the 527 actually being 5.4) so my ideal ZCO would be:

Zoom: 3-16 (5.33 erector so seemingly in the range ZCO is okay with)
Reticle: FFP (MPCT2 and 3)
Tube: 34mm for more mounting options
OAL: <12.5"
Weight: <30oz
IQ & CA on par with 420/527
MSRP: ~$3500

I tried to keep the parameters within a realm of feasibility while keeping it similar to the vein in which ZCO products currently live.

I agree with everything except the weight.
Yes, that is lighter than a current ZCO, but that's still darn heavy for a good crossover scope. Maybe if they needed to shrink the tube to 30mm to cut weight, that would be OK by me. It should really be sub 25/26oz.

I still use the old NXS 2.5-10 for my SPR comps because of how light it is. That combined with the proven durability it brings to the table, paralax adjustments, and reticle I can use for holds, it makes for a very field usable optic.
Now is the NXS perfect? No. But that's why we're here having this conversation. ZCO may be capable of creating the "perfect" light tac/crossover/hunting scope for the market. If they do, I'll be speaking with my wallet.

 

[CoriolisEffect]

I agree with everything except the weight.
Yes, that is lighter than a current ZCO, but that's still darn heavy for a good crossover scope. Maybe if they needed to shrink the tube to 30mm to cut weight, that would be OK by me. It should really be sub 25/26oz.

I still use the old NXS 2.5-10 for my SPR comps because of how light it is. That combined with the proven durability it brings to the table, paralax adjustments, and reticle I can use for holds, it makes for a very field usable optic.
Now is the NXS perfect? No. But that's why we're here having this conversation. ZCO may be capable of creating the "perfect" light tac/crossover/hunting scope for the market. If they do, I'll be speaking with my wallet.

I get where you’re coming from, but my biggest concern with it being super light would be robustness. I don’t want to have to worry about something so expensive being fragile. Not because I’m careless or hard on the things I own, but because accidents happen. I see some of these comments asking for sub-20oz and to me that would go entirely against the company’s “creed” of zero compromise. Speaking as an engineer, weight is always the enemy, you’ll get no argument from me. But defeating that enemy will cost you, either in durability or the wallet.

 

[ormandj]

I'll take a crack at this as someone considering a 420 for a large gas gun. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that ZCO likes to stick with the ~5x erector (with the 527 actually being 5.4) so my ideal ZCO would be:

Zoom: 3-16 (5.33 erector so seemingly in the range ZCO is okay with)
Reticle: FFP (MPCT2 and 3)
Tube: 34mm for more mounting options
OAL: <12.5"
Weight: <30oz
IQ & CA on par with 420/527
MSRP: ~$3500

I tried to keep the parameters within a realm of feasibility while keeping it similar to the vein in which ZCO products currently live.

I get where you’re coming from, but my biggest concern with it being super light would be robustness. I don’t want to have to worry about something so expensive being fragile. Not because I’m careless or hard on the things I own, but because accidents happen. I see some of these comments asking for sub-20oz and to me that would go entirely against the company’s “creed” of zero compromise. Speaking as an engineer, weight is always the enemy, you’ll get no argument from me. But defeating that enemy will cost you, either in durability or the wallet.

I think a low to mid 20oz scope can be made plenty durable for what you would use it for. If you need something to baton a knife with to cut your firewood, then get the extra heavy-duty scopes.

Something that can survive a dropped rifle/banged against stuff/etc doesn’t need to be heavy. There’s no point to doing a crossover that’s in the same weight league as the 420.

 

[Jgunner]

Well, a 4-16 atacr is 30oz, a amg is 28.5 but higer mag range. I know it does not take much to bump a amg from zero. Atacr is another story. I think if it was kept at 30oz it would be fine, after that it gets into higher mag scopes and then whats the point?

 

[gebhardt02]

@gebhardt02 is this something that we should keep on our radar? Cause I could use one right meow.

Making no promises right now, but we are heavily considering this. Research is going on, specs being developed, etc. Doing our due diligence in making the right decisions.

 

[jakelly]

Making no promises right now, but we are heavily considering this. Research is going on, specs being developed, etc. Doing our due diligence in making the right decisions.

I would much prefer that you approach this as a 1” tube scope and grow it into a 30mm than a 36mm tube scope that you try to shoehorn into 30mm.

JMHO…

 

[ormandj]

I’m fine with a 34mm tube or otherwise, whatever is necessary for the quality we all have come to expect. I just want it in a lighter weight package. I trust ZCO to know how to make the compromises necessary to deliver the product we all want.

 

[deersniper]

2.5 x 5.3 = a 2.5-13.
i like the 2-3x on the bottom side. No 4x!

30mm tube sounds great



a decent amount of customers are wanting to use clip on thermal or nv optics in front of these scoes
according to some RKIs, some scopes have a much better image than others when a clip on is put our front.

maybe procure a Utc xii, pvs 30, PVS 27 and the new thermals due out at the end of the year and ensure this new scope does as well as possible with clip ons

here’s the new thermals

Pixels on Target — TSSi

www.tssi-ops.com

Idk anything about procurement but I would think a 2.5-14 with excellent performance with clip ons would be something .mil would like

 

[srt-4_uk]

I know a PVS-27 tunnels at 2.5x. For it specifically, no need for anything under 3x.

Sample size of 1.

 

[SkyScrapin]

2.5 x 5.3 = a 2.5-13.
i like the 2-3x on the bottom side. No 4x!

30mm tube sounds great



a decent amount of customers are wanting to use clip on thermal or nv optics in front of these scoes
according to some RKIs, some scopes have a much better image than others when a clip on is put our front.

maybe procure a Utc xii, pvs 30, PVS 27 and the new thermals due out at the end of the year and ensure this new scope does as well as possible with clip ons

here’s the new thermals

Pixels on Target — TSSi

www.tssi-ops.com

Idk anything about procurement but I would think a 2.5-14 with excellent performance with clip ons would be something .mil would like

Or just give us a call and we'll happily provide clip-ons for testing. Just sayiiiiin

 

[dms416]

Making no promises right now, but we are heavily considering this. Research is going on, specs being developed, etc. Doing our due diligence in making the right decisions.

Yes...this please.

For the love of all things holy, somebody get something that doesn't suck in this class between the limited use S&B 3-12x42 Precision Hunter's and the Tangent Theta TT315M/315LRH.

 

[CoriolisEffect]

2.5 x 5.3 = a 2.5-13.
i like the 2-3x on the bottom side. No 4x!

30mm tube sounds great

I feel like we all wish they would just make a ZCO level NX8 2.5-20 if it was possible

I don't really understand why some are so adamant about a 30mm tube, is it purely for weight? Since I don't really see something with a top end around ~15x being used for really long range shots, having a ton of elevation/windage like the 420/527 doesn't seem necessary, so maybe 30mm would be fine. As long as durability, IQ/CA, (edit: and eye box!) aren't compromised by going to a 30mm vs 34mm, I wouldn't care either as I wouldn't be dialing with an MPCT3.

 

[Burdy]

I feel like we all wish they would just make a ZCO level NX8 2.5-20 if it was possible

I don't really understand why some are so adamant about a 30mm tube, is it purely for weight? Since I don't really see something with a top end around ~15x being used for really long range shots, having a ton of elevation/windage like the 420/527 doesn't seem necessary, so maybe 30mm would be fine. As long as durability and IQ/CA aren't compromised by going to a 30mm vs 34mm, I wouldn't care either as I wouldn't be dialing with an MPCT3.

30mm because extreme elevation not needed, weight and for me because some companies 34mm mounts aren't as low as their 30mm counterparts, especially if you want to run something cantilever. Just more options of heights with 30mm.

 

[Huskydriver]

Making no promises right now, but we are heavily considering this. Research is going on, specs being developed, etc. Doing our due diligence in making the right decisions.

Msr2 reticle.......do it

 

[chase723]

2.5 x 5.3 = a 2.5-13.
i like the 2-3x on the bottom side. No 4x!

30mm tube sounds great



a decent amount of customers are wanting to use clip on thermal or nv optics in front of these scoes
according to some RKIs, some scopes have a much better image than others when a clip on is put our front.

maybe procure a Utc xii, pvs 30, PVS 27 and the new thermals due out at the end of the year and ensure this new scope does as well as possible with clip ons

here’s the new thermals

Pixels on Target — TSSi

www.tssi-ops.com

Idk anything about procurement but I would think a 2.5-14 with excellent performance with clip ons would be something .mil would like

Any insight into what these will cost?

 

[chevy_man]

Well, a 4-16 atacr is 30oz, a amg is 28.5 but higer mag range. I know it does not take much to bump a amg from zero. Atacr is another story. I think if it was kept at 30oz it would be fine, after that it gets into higher mag scopes and then whats the point?

They need to be in the 15-20oz range to hit "hunting weight".

They don't need to be heavy. They actually take less recoil abuse if they're lighter.

And if I had an AMG that lost zero from any hit, it would go back.

 

[chase723]

Any insight into what these will cost?

NM. Looks like $18-20K.

 

[deersniper]

Any insight into what these will cost?

The scope or clip ons. ?

 

[Jgunner]

They need to be in the 15-20oz range to hit "hunting weight".

They don't need to be heavy. They actually take less recoil abuse if they're lighter.

And if I had an AMG that lost zero from any hit, it would go back.

Think so? One was a real bad spill, the other not so much. The second one was pretty light. But wouldnt hurt to have it gone through.

 

[deersniper]

Msr2 reticle.......do it

Maybe if they get rid of the milling reticle to the left , add circles at each mil line. And add more vertical mil subtensions

 

[Huskydriver]

View attachment 7712034
Maybe if they get rid of the milling reticle to the left , add circles at each mil line. And add more vertical mil subtensions

Quit smocking crack it's perfect the way it is....
open circles are gayier than aides....
3 mils above is perfect...I don't think I ever shot a holdover stage where I needed more than 3 mils


Stick with the mpact3 leave my msr2 alone!



Oh and it's perfect on 10x behind a clipon

 

[deersniper]

open circles are gayier than aides....
3 mils above is perfect...I don't think I ever shot a holdover stage where I needed more than 3 mils

1). You’re wrong about circles. Maybe see the optometrt

2). I mean more divisions than .5. Need .2 holds like mil c versus mil r. And yes I don’t want more above the reticle that would be tarded

 

[Huskydriver]

1). You’re wrong about circles. Maybe see the optometrt

2). I mean more divisions than .5. Need .2 holds like mil c versus mil r. And yes I don’t want more above the reticle that would be tarded

You get .2 not .5 left or right for the first mil.......

I had Lasik....twice circles are gey

 

[deersniper]

You get .2 not .5 left or right for the first mil.......

I had Lasik....twice circles are gey

Elevation.

smfh
Think your lasik needs a touch up

mil c is a better reticle than your junk pile. The only redeeming characteristic of your reticle is the little man ranger on the right side thar will never be used

 

[Huskydriver]

Elevation.

smfh
Think your lasik needs a touch up

View attachment 7712260
mil c is a better reticle than your junk pile. The only redeeming characteristic of your reticle is the little man ranger on the right side thar will never be used

Prolly does honestly.....

My range is all human silhouettes homie gotta train like you.....
I use those Lil rangers all the time and all the built in holds within the center cross.

Check our the finnacuracy website for why everything was designed like it was.

The more I practice with that reticle the more I like it.

Mil c isn't bad but I would never run a NF

 

[deersniper]

My range is all human silhouettes homie gotta train like you.....

How can you not like the ranging uterus then ??