-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes ZCO 2-16
- Thread starter BurtGummer
- Start date
I don't like it at the 12 o'clock....I like having that open so when I'm on 3x or 5x I got basically a spotting scope unless I kick my illum on them it's almost like a lvpo
I guess I am the only one that thinks the MPCT3 is nearly freaking perfect. I like the circles, I like the funnel, I like the numbering and the size of the tree. Don't change anything. Just take that 5.4x erector and build this 2.5-13.5 in a lightweight scope and tell me where to send my damn money.
I’d be all over a PMII 3-12x42 if it were 21-22 oz…
In a near identical package as the 5-20US.
To interest me... the scope would have to be under 26 oz.
There are plenty of high end scopes with low end magnification of 3-4x and a high end of 15-20x that weight about 30 oz. Just about every high end manufacturer makes something along those lines.
I really want an updated NF NXS 2.5-10x42. That optic isn't perfect, but there isn't much like it in the market, IMO. 20oz, mil/mil, exposed turrets, adjustable parallax, illumination all in a reliable scope.
The 4-16 ATACR is a great scope, I just wish it were a little bit smaller and lighter for a ar15 or LW setup. The Leupold mark 5 is close to perfect, but it has a few warts.
I'd love to take a 4-16 ATACR and scale it down to a 3-15x42 ATACR with a 30mm main tube and 7 or 8 mil double turn turret. I don't need zero hold. I'd hope those changes would be enough to bring the weight down to 24ish oz.
Or take the Leupold mark 5 and scale it to 3-15x42, 30mm main tube, 7-8 mil double turn turret and touch up some of the optical performance. I'd think those changes could bring the weight down from 26 oz.
7-8 mil double turn turret would give 14-16 mils of usable elevation... Which is plenty given how flat cartridges are these days. This isn't supposed to be a ELR scope so 14-16 mils is plenty of elevation for the kind of rifle you'd be putting a LW scope on. With a 20 or 30 moa base, you wouldn't need a crazy amount of total elevation travel to get the full 14 mils.
And the 42mm ATACR has surprisingly good optical performance. I think I'd take the weight savings of a 42mm objective over a 50mm objective, given how good the 42mm scope can be.
I'd stay away from a 8x erector. I think 4x or 5x would be ideal... I'd hate to see another scope that makes too many compromises to get a 8x erector in a small scope (looking at you NF 2.5-20). I'd much rather take a well executed, easy to use 3-15 scope than another 2-16 scope that you are constantly fighting against.
I don't think NF will make my scope, so maybe ZCO will... I think NF believes they have their bases covered already... Between the 2.5-10x42 NXS and 1-8 ATACR and 2.5-20 NX8 they think there is no gap in their line up... But I obviously disagree.
There are plenty of high end scopes with low end magnification of 3-4x and a high end of 15-20x that weight about 30 oz. Just about every high end manufacturer makes something along those lines.
I really want an updated NF NXS 2.5-10x42. That optic isn't perfect, but there isn't much like it in the market, IMO. 20oz, mil/mil, exposed turrets, adjustable parallax, illumination all in a reliable scope.
The 4-16 ATACR is a great scope, I just wish it were a little bit smaller and lighter for a ar15 or LW setup. The Leupold mark 5 is close to perfect, but it has a few warts.
I'd love to take a 4-16 ATACR and scale it down to a 3-15x42 ATACR with a 30mm main tube and 7 or 8 mil double turn turret. I don't need zero hold. I'd hope those changes would be enough to bring the weight down to 24ish oz.
Or take the Leupold mark 5 and scale it to 3-15x42, 30mm main tube, 7-8 mil double turn turret and touch up some of the optical performance. I'd think those changes could bring the weight down from 26 oz.
7-8 mil double turn turret would give 14-16 mils of usable elevation... Which is plenty given how flat cartridges are these days. This isn't supposed to be a ELR scope so 14-16 mils is plenty of elevation for the kind of rifle you'd be putting a LW scope on. With a 20 or 30 moa base, you wouldn't need a crazy amount of total elevation travel to get the full 14 mils.
And the 42mm ATACR has surprisingly good optical performance. I think I'd take the weight savings of a 42mm objective over a 50mm objective, given how good the 42mm scope can be.
I'd stay away from a 8x erector. I think 4x or 5x would be ideal... I'd hate to see another scope that makes too many compromises to get a 8x erector in a small scope (looking at you NF 2.5-20). I'd much rather take a well executed, easy to use 3-15 scope than another 2-16 scope that you are constantly fighting against.
I don't think NF will make my scope, so maybe ZCO will... I think NF believes they have their bases covered already... Between the 2.5-10x42 NXS and 1-8 ATACR and 2.5-20 NX8 they think there is no gap in their line up... But I obviously disagree.
Preach brother. I'd like to see 22 oz max if illuminated, 21 oz or under if not. (my personal opinion is that alpha level glass doesn't need illumination except on LPVOs, but Ill take it either way) There is so many use cases for an optic like this for all types of hunting, all types of NV setups, SPR/DMR type platforms, and competitions where mileage and weight are a concern. Not to mention a perfect optic for something like the Q Fix, Sig Cross or other similar builds. I also would actually prefer 42mm.
Well it needs to be FFP to start
I’ve been thinking how sweet it would be with the MilC reticle.
I could name off a few reticles. All tactical. Not sure why they dont. Not everyone wants or needs 15x or more. But its not much lighter than a vortex 1-10 and you get all that range and a usable, alhough its still not ideal. I want something for smaller, lighter guns paired with a clipon, on occasion. Fov, weight, reticle and package size are all points i struggle to pair in my desires. Oh, and it needs to take a beating.
I am using the new Vortex Razor HD-LHT 4.5-22x50 on my Fix and it is perfect there: FFP, less than 22 ounces, functional reticle.
ILya
Possibly with circles instead of intersections and a smaller tree. I don’t see the need for 2 mil of windage at the 1 mil elevation line
maybe take the mpct 3 add some thicker stadia on the sides , get rid of the dots between the circles , add a donut of death
I think I’m tracking and agree. Maybe some G2 mildot thickness. If there are holds at 2mil I would think one could split the difference at 1mil for wind holds. Or make the dots small enough to really only be visible at max mag.
Yeah, it certainly has its place. I have two of the 1.5-8's, I think the LHT/LHs are overlooked too often. If they slotted something in between with a reticle with some sort of low power/fast aiming feature like a donut, circle or something similar to the SAI, I think they would have another winner.
I'll echo the above. ~20oz, ~12", 30mm tube, 42mm objective, exposed elevation, capped windage, illumination for hunting, tool less turret zero, a decent reticle with a small tree.
I was set on the TT315H, but I really would like a different reticle. I currently hunt with a NX8 and NXS 2.5-10x42. They are on either side of what I would call perfect. I love the size of the NXS, but really wish it had more then 10x on the higher end. I like the extra magnification on the nx8, but it gives up a lot for the 8x erector.
I was set on the TT315H, but I really would like a different reticle. I currently hunt with a NX8 and NXS 2.5-10x42. They are on either side of what I would call perfect. I love the size of the NXS, but really wish it had more then 10x on the higher end. I like the extra magnification on the nx8, but it gives up a lot for the 8x erector.
Just out of curiosity, why the 30mm tube requirement? If the weight and length goal are met with a 34mm, and you got the extra adjustment of the larger diameter, would you have an issue with it?
Physical size. The 34mm tube does not sit on a hunting rifle as well as a 30mm tube.
The 4-16x42 ATACR is a large scope for a hunting rifle.
The 4-16x42 ATACR is a large scope for a hunting rifle.
Fair enough. I actually prefer the look of a 34mm scope tube, but I can understand preferring a more traditional look, too. The objective size is more important to me in terms of how a scope “sits” on a rifle, since it actually influences the positioning, and functional bulk, vs. just aesthetic. I’m definitely a function over form person, though.
I probably should head out from this thread with how specific it is on magnification, because I actually just want a lighter weight 4-20; something like the Vortex 4.5-22, but with ZCO turret and optical quality, in a 20-25oz package. I just bought one of the Vortex mentioned but will likely buy another few to fill the gap until something nicer comes along. I might just fit a different demographic of users, since my intent is long range hunting and target use.
Last edited:
I didn’t put this in my original comment of ideal parameters but I hope that whatever this ends up being that they don’t change the locking turrets (except for range of adjustment or mils/rev maybe) or the illumination functionality. I really, really like the ZCO execution of these two items and hope they simply copy/paste them from the 420/527.
I don’t follow the logic here. Tube diameter doesn’t determine how close the scope can mount to the action, objective diameter does. A 4-16x42 isn’t going to “sit on” a rifle any differently with a 30mm tube.
If you’re talking about how far the turrets stick out as a function of tube diameter, it’s only 2mm more which is hardly anything.
Last edited:
There are popular companies who's cantiliver mounts are not available in 34mm as low as they are 30mm. A scope like this would likely also be used on an AR platform fairly often where those type mounts are used.
March has some stuff worth mentioning in this ball park but they fail to deliver on one very important feature...locking turrets. They are usually pretty good about building you a particular configuration or doing a reticle swap if you are willing and patient, but I emailed them about locking turrets on some of their scopes in this range and it was not something they are not willing to do at this time.
I mean, ugh, all manufactures seem to missing one little detail like they are toying with us.
The March D24V42FML and FIML are soooo close. 3x-24x, 30mm tube, 42mm objective, FFP, .1 MIL, and 21.52 or 22.58 oz respectively and a really good crossover reticle (at least on paper) in the FML-TR1H. It's really unfortunate that non-locking turrets are a no-go for me because thats the scope right there with that one minor change.
I already reached out to Deon and requested locking turrets on a few of their models, and they said they are evaluating it. I completely agree. They had such nice locking turrets on the 5-42 but that scope (1) is not what we need for this use case and (2) I was not impressed with the optics. On the other hand, I love the newer 4.5-28, it is a little heavier than the <25oz I’d like, but it needs locking turrets.
I haven’t seen those two you mentioned in person but now I’m interested. I won’t detail this thread, but thanks for the tip. I’ll speak to Deon again about locking turrets for those models.
It would generally seem to me that it is the duty of mount mfgs to produce products that fit scopes on the market, not scope mfgs duty to make products that fit the mounts. Just my opinion, though.
The smaller size helps with packing it. I hike a lot and in and out the scabbard and slung up next to my pack. The larger scope catches more straps and what not.
Also with saving weight in the 30mm tube I would assume it means they don't have to skimp in other areas to make weight.
There is already a few options in the 34mm tube size.
Also with saving weight in the 30mm tube I would assume it means they don't have to skimp in other areas to make weight.
There is already a few options in the 34mm tube size.
Well for me that's the secondary reason to have a 30mm. The first reason is the weight. You're not going to build a 34mm that weighs less than a 30mm with everything else being the same. I could be wrong but I would think at the same zoom range we are talking about and the weight we are talking about a 30 mm tube will provide plenty enough adjustment for 99% of it's use. We all have bigger more powerful 34s if we really need it. The point of this is to fill a hole in the market. Making it 34 mm really in my opinion defeats that purpose because then you are almost guaranteed to be greater than 25 ounces, and we have plenty of options out there at that weight and size already if that's what you want.
I've been trying to get someone to make me a 3-15x38 FFP scope that would weigh in at less than 20 ounces for years. Eventually, I'll succeed.
I also have two 1.5-8x32 HD-LH scopes and like them a lot.
If I ever start a scope company, I will bring back that design with center dot illumination.
ILya
My point comes from experience with engineering and design. Let the engineers figure out how to meet the requirements; focus on setting requirements you need as a user. If they could make a 34mm tube 42mm objective scope with the zoom range you want, at or under whatever your weight limit (25oz or otherwise), why would you care about the scope tube size? Larger tubes allow for more clamping force, more elevation, and don’t create more bulk aside from potentially slightly more turret protrusion. I see the commentary about the mount selection, but there are plenty of 34mm mounts that can get scopes just as low as 30mm ring mounts.
I don’t think being proscriptive about *how* to solve a problem is healthy when approaching these discussions; just present the problems and the desired outcome, and let the engineers figure out the solutions and trade offs necessary to get there. If a 30mm main tube really influences your buying decisions based on something material, then so be it, but it sounds like you just want lighter weight. There are plenty of ways to arrive at that endpoint.
There’s nothing product engineering hates more than being told how to solve a problem instead of just being presented with the constraints and asked to figure it out. It artificially limits the options and generally results in more compromises than are necessary.
Understood and makes perfect sense. Just seems hard enough for manufactures to meet this list of specifications even at 30mm and be at ~21 ounces. If they can do it with a 34mm tube, that is certainly not going to stop me from buying it if all other criteria are met.
That would be a value add, but that G4 reticle is already very visible at dawn/dusk without illumination as it is. Its such a joy to use for short range weapon systems. I use one on a SBR hunting .300 BLK and one on a lightweight rimfire small game setup.
That’s where I’m at! If it needs to be a 30mm, I’m all for it, I just want them to figure it out. If they can go to lighter materials and still get us the durability we want, with more elevation from a 34mm, that would be awesome. I also wouldn’t complain if the scope ends up 30mm but has ZCO turrets and optical quality in a 20oz package! I do still want a 20x scope, though, hah.
Speaking as an engineer - yes, exactly. 99% of management ideas on how to do something are abject stupidity and the other 1% we’ve already implemented.
Give us the functional requirements and let us figure it out.
So:
- Weight
- Zoom range
- Depth of field
- Field of view
- Overall length
- Reticle
- Focal plane
I once worked in a world where:
Engineers thought management was stupid. Mechanics thought engineers were stupid.
Management thought mechanics were stupid.
Revolving $h!t storm.
All of it could have been fixed by objective dialogue, which proved impossible as each party presumed they were smarter than the other.
Oh for sure, management has its place - like removing impediments to engineers being able to do our jobs, and generally deciding which jobs we should do - and mechanics are often correct that engineers don’t consider how something will be serviced. I’m thrilled to work somewhere that involves the right people in the right decisions.
The problems in my history have tended to arise when person in corporate function A micromanages person in corporate function B, with zero background in B. I remember one non-technical program manager in particular…
Do you have a review of the 1.5-8? These have been on-sale for cheap on europtic but I've never heard any feed back on them. I'm Pretty sure they're Japanese made.
My engineers abso-fucking-lutely abhor being told how to implement. That’s their job and they don’t want to be told how to do it, they only want the requirements and parameters - those aren’t in their domain.
I have one on a 300WSM levergun and another on a 458SOCOM AR. I will probably take the one off of the AR and set it up as a spare for the 300WSM. It is such a lightweight scope that it is easy to carry with you as a spare.
ILya
Yes, these are Japanese. I reviewed the whole product line a while back. They have been discontinued for a bit now, unfortunately.
The 1.5-8x32 is a spectacular little scope.
ILya
Is anyone taking carbon fiber stock and machining it to make tubes and objectives? Could be way stronger with less weight. Tubes could be bigger which i know also creates strength. I am sure the small internal parts and the glass are what make up most of the weight though.
There have been a couple of scopes with carbon fiber tubes. That mostly makes them pretty. That's pretty much it.
ILya
The key to lighter scopes is going to come from new lens material. The glass is where there is the most opportunity to cut weight.
CF composites are useful and interesting for many purposes. However:
- Their strength and stiffness in the same geometry are approximately the same as aluminum
- They require additional thickness to be gas tight
- If dented, they are no longer gas tight
- You need to add inserts for acceptable threaded or sealed attachments
Yeah, seen 1, but it was heavy and not very special. I would just like to see an all out build and feel cf has less thermal shift than aluminum and can be lighter and stronger. I know its a bitch to machine, especially compared to aluminum which is a breeze.
I have seen carbon fiber exhaust headers, seen it machined and threaded without inserts, not so sure about the strength to weight ratio of alum.
agreed on gas tight being the hardest part.
never seen carbon dent. Its either cracked or its not. I have a lot of carbon fiber things, including valve covers (100% cf and don’t weigh shit) and i either break it for good or it keeps on ticking.
just look at handguards for ar15. I have lighter than aluminum with more rigidity. I have lots of stuff mounted to it and it may scratch, but yet to break one, even in a bad tumble.
Stiffness and strength (different things) to weight are better for CF than aluminum, but comparisons to volume are the same.
Carbon fiber dents - yeah, not exactly the right word. The idea I was trying to communicate was “it takes a chunk out or makes a pretty good crack all the way through”. The part is no longer functional, whereas you can still use a dented scope with an aluminum tube.
Threads in carbon fiber are about the worst possible way to load it. Yeah, it might work in some applications, but they’re large threads and not heavily loaded. Threads like you’ll need for holding an erector tube in place are thinner than the fiber weave. You could maybe get the epoxy to cooperate somewhat, but that will creep under a clamp load that won’t back out.
Given stiffness for the weight, agreed, CF is the way to go for AR forends. The main purpose is to be present, and maybe provide some attachments to other things.
