Rifle Scopes ZCO 2-16

#351
CSTactical said:
If that was the case, March would do it ;)

Short scopes with high erector systems look great on paper but typically don't translate well...
Click to expand...
Re read what he said...

Take down 8x to 5-6x erector...

The discussion point for this thread is does zco have the tech skills to do 6x erector that doesnt suck or a tube size under what they are doing already.

My concern is they already (may) (re) use same internals 4-20 and 5-27 so their biz model (may) wants those returns to scale from using similar parts across SKUs

Going to 30mm might force them to adopt new, unique internals from scratch/ higher RD costs etc... and recover $$ from their 3rd design/ potentially 3 rd rank in most popular scope sales.
 
#352
ma smith said:
Re read what he said...

Take down 8x to 5-6x erector...

The discussion point for this thread is does zco have the tech skills to do 6x erector that doesnt suck or a tube size under what they are doing already.

My concern is they already use the same internals 4-20 and 5-27 so their biz model wants those returns to scale from using parts across SKUs

Going to 30mm might force them to adopt new parts on the internals from scratch/ RD costs etc.
Click to expand...


thats-my-bad-sorry-about-that.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: HenryTheAce
#353
ma smith said:
Re read what he said...

Take down 8x to 5-6x erector...

The discussion point for this thread is does zco have the tech skills to do 6x erector that doesnt suck or a tube size under what they are doing already.

My concern is they already (may) (re) use same internals 4-20 and 5-27 so their biz model (may) wants those returns to scale from using similar parts across SKUs

Going to 30mm might force them to adopt new, unique internals from scratch/ higher RD costs etc... and recover $$ from their 3rd design/ potentially 3 rd rank in most popular scope sales.
Click to expand...


Oh and no explanation needed, we have had this conversation directly with them for awhile ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ma smith
#356
gebhardt02 said:
These things take a lot of time. So no updates as to anything just yet. It's still going to be a while.
Click to expand...
I, for one, want you guys to take your time on this one to really get it right and stay true to the brand. Of course, things taking time is completely unacceptable to the typical American consumer...
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Bakwa, HenryTheAce and deersniper
#361
st1650 said:
Isn’t the eye box picky on these or have they improved it ?
Click to expand...
My first copy of the NX8 (early adopter) was pretty horrible, a friend sent me a newer copy a few months back and I was highly impressed, they fixed a lot of optical abnormalities the first one suffered from. Yes, being an 8x erector in a short body does lend toward finicky eyebox, DOF and parallax but it is not horrible, that second copy I reviewed is what I would call "acceptable" in those areas.

It is exciting to see ZCO give serious consideration to the MPVO market, a couple other alpha class manufacturers also have some stuff in the works that I am aware of (don't ask because I can't say) which means next year could be very interesting with some alpha options in this untapped territory.

Until that occurs, the NF NX8 2.5-20 is probably the best thing going outside of the cheaper options out there, most which don't really meet the criteria for MPVO. For clarity, I am defining MPVO as a FFP scope that offers under 3x at the bottom magnification and 12x or higher at the top end, ideally this scope would be fairly short (under 13") and fairly light (under 25 oz) for both semi-auto and crossover hunting applications. A 2-16 or 2.5-15 with superb IQ would really rock the boat...
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: rlsmith1, HaydenLane, gnochi and 5 others
#364
Glassaholic said:
My first copy of the NX8 (early adopter) was pretty horrible, a friend sent me a newer copy a few months back and I was highly impressed, they fixed a lot of optical abnormalities the first one suffered from. Yes, being an 8x erector in a short body does lend toward finicky eyebox, DOF and parallax but it is not horrible, that second copy I reviewed is what I would call "acceptable" in those areas.
Click to expand...
Not to derail the thread too badly, but it's really interesting to read how your opinion of the NX8 has changed. Your original review of it was the most detailed one I could find online and completely steered me away from it.
 
#365
TheOE800 said:
😱
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that just because things are in R&D doesn't necessarily mean they'll come to fruition, there has to be perceived market demand to justify ROI, but threads like this certainly help manufacturers understand whether or not something may even be worth pursuing. If ZCO were to introduce something like a 2.5-15x42 30mm FFP scope that met the above criteria for length and weight I would be all over that and I think a lot of other folks would be as well (sure a 2-16x42 would be even better but I have my reservations with an 8x erector scope providing the necessary IQ, eyebox, DOF and parallax within the limitations of length and weight - that being said, if they can do it then by all means shoot for the stars).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa, Squibbler, Bangin and 2 others
#366
Glassaholic said:
Keep in mind that just because things are in R&D doesn't necessarily mean they'll come to fruition, there has to be perceived market demand to justify ROI, but threads like this certainly help manufacturers understand whether or not something may even be worth pursuing. If ZCO were to introduce something like a 2.5-15x42 30mm FFP scope that met the above criteria for length and weight I would be all over that and I think a lot of other folks would be as well (sure a 2-16x42 would be even better but I have my reservations with an 8x erector scope providing the necessary IQ, eyebox, DOF and parallax within the limitations of length and weight - that being said, if they can do it then by all means shoot for the stars).
Click to expand...
Dibs on prototype samples
 
#368
CoriolisEffect said:
Not to derail the thread too badly, but it's really interesting to read how your opinion of the NX8 has changed. Your original review of it was the most detailed one I could find online and completely steered me away from it.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good example of how sample variance can effect a review. I wish I had the money to buy 3 scopes of the same model and evaluate how each one performs under the same settings and same tests, to my shame I should have sent the NX8 back to NF and told them my findings and see what they would have done with warranty (would they have said it's within spec and just shipped back or would they have said we are surprised this passed through QC and sending you another copy). This is exactly what happened with the Burris XTR III 3.3-18 and the second copy they sent was a big improvement over the first. I think more than anything else (maybe not understanding how to properly set the diopter is another huge factor) this is what lends to "mixed reviews" from the community - we've all heard it before, someone says scope X is junk while another says it is the best thing since sliced bread, does it mean one is wrong and the other is right, not necessarily it could mean the copy one got was that "one" that slipped through the QC cracks. We tend to see this more with the "cheaper" scopes and by cheaper I'm talking the $2k category so in this case "cheap" is relative, once you move up to the $3k category and higher manufacturers like ZCO, Schmidt and Tangent are known to provide better QC (not flawless, but better mind you) and that is part of what you're paying for. Yes, one could argue that a $2k class scope ought to offer the same and I would tend to agree; however, that does not appear to be the case in my experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoriolisEffect
#369
jbuck88 said:
I would be willing to go 3-15 instead of 2-16 if it means it's more forgiving for actual hunting. So eyebox, DOF, and parallax are more important to me then 2x vs 3x on the bottom end.
Click to expand...
Well then you already have a scope that fills that exact requirement, it is the TT315M - a 27oz 3-15x50 that absolutely excels in IQ, eyebox, DOF and parallax forgiveness. I just don't see ZCO pursuing this type of scope that already exists in the marketplace and for me and others 3x at the bottom end doesn't ideally fulfill the MPVO requirement, I think that's why this 2-16 thread has been so popular. If I could have a ZCO 2.5-15x42 that was even shorter and lighter than the TT315M then I would be all over that even as much as I like the TT because I'd prefer even wider FOV at the bottom and also a reticle that works at low mag and higher mag - some could argue that the Gen3 XR does quite cut it at the low end of the 3-15 magnification and I would say it is on the ragged edge of usability, so having something much more usable would be ideal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Just Macca and Bakwa
#370
I was ready to buy the TT315H, but the only reticle they offer is the Mildot. If I'm paying TT money I'd like other reticle option. I like everything else about it though. The capped or locking windage would be a huge plus, as would a slim illumination dial.

It would be pretty crazy to just acknowledge that there is a market for a optic, but then sit back because there is only 1 other company making a product to fill it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
#372
I personally think there is a huge underdeveloped market for the high end hunting optics. I'm seeing a huge evolution in the last 5-7 years on what's showing up at hunting camp. There are several options for alpha glass that is SFP and capped elevation and windage.

Eventually we are going to get some optics that have a good reticle for the bottom end magnification and illumination and still work for the top end of the zoom range and dialing. All in a more compact size and dialing friendly turrets. The TT315H comes close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
#374
Glassaholic said:
If I could have a ZCO 2.5-15x42 that was even shorter and lighter than the TT315M then I would be all over that even as much as I like the TT because I'd prefer even wider FOV at the bottom and also a reticle that works at low mag and higher mag - some could argue that the Gen3 XR does quite cut it at the low end of the 3-15 magnification and I would say it is on the ragged edge of usability, so having something much more usable would be ideal.
Click to expand...
So how much FoV is acceptable/necessary at the 2.5x-3x range? The 3-20US and NX8 2.5-20 are both around 39-42ft. Seems there isn't much potential benefit in that 0.5x. Personally, I still like the 3-16 range since it could use their existing erector geometry that is widely known to work well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gebhardt02
#375
CoriolisEffect said:
So how much FoV is acceptable/necessary at the 2.5x-3x range? The 3-20US and NX8 2.5-20 are both around 39-42ft. Seems there isn't much potential benefit in that 0.5x. Personally, I still like the 3-16 range since it could use their existing erector geometry that is widely known to work well.
Click to expand...
Different scopes manage FOV differently, so a bit apples and oranges. A ZCO 2.5x would have ~17% more FOV than a ZCO 3x.

That said, a 5x erector (used in all 3 of their designs) would be a 2.5-12.5. That might be a tough sell.

Like you, I’d personally go for a 3-15 over a 2.5-12.5, and I think ZCO offerings differ from TT enough (just like current 5-27 vs TT 5-25) to dispel any “but it’s the same power range” concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
#377
pucker said:
Different scopes manage FOV differently, so a bit apples and oranges. A ZCO 2.5x would have ~17% more FOV than a ZCO 3x.

That said, a 5x erector (used in all 3 of their designs) would be a 2.5-12.5. That might be a tough sell.

Like you, I’d personally go for a 3-15 over a 2.5-12.5, and I think ZCO offerings differ from TT enough (just like current 5-27 vs TT 5-25) to dispel any “but it’s the same power range” concerns.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I'd actually be happiest with a lighter weight 4-20. I rarely touch 4x when hunting, but definitely use 10-20x a lot. When I'm out hunting for things up close I prefer a red dot (with magnifier if needed). I've tried to do the "does everything" swiss-army approach before (LPVOs) and always been disappointed. They end up on 10x the vast majority of the time, and I'm always wishing for more magnification. Even the Razor G3 doesn't beat an Aimpoint for the 1x experience.

I feel like a 2-16 or 3-15 is in that weird compromise spot that's 75% of the way there for two purposes (near/far hunting), but ZCO has (impressively) always been a 99% optic for me with their designs. I hunt with the 4-20 a lot as it is; I just don't like all the weight. The compromise is worth it, but I'd give up the windage knob, go with a lighter elevation knob design, and give up some of the internal travel for a lighter weight scope (perhaps allowing a smaller tube). Most hunting rifles you'd expect to see this kind of optic on are going to have 6mil interrupted or straight rails already, and won't be 308s trying to lob bullets out to 2000 yards and need all that elevation in addition to the base.

Just my opinion, again, though. I'm sure some would prefer the 2-16 or w/e range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jafo96 and Bakwa
#378
ormandj said:
I agree, but I'd actually be happiest with a lighter weight 4-20. I rarely touch 4x when hunting, but definitely use 10-20x a lot. When I'm out hunting for things up close I prefer a red dot (with magnifier if needed). I've tried to do the "does everything" swiss-army approach before (LPVOs) and always been disappointed. They end up on 10x the vast majority of the time, and I'm always wishing for more magnification. Even the Razor G3 doesn't beat an Aimpoint for the 1x experience.

I feel like a 2-16 or 3-15 is in that weird compromise spot that's 75% of the way there for two purposes (near/far hunting), but ZCO has (impressively) always been a 99% optic for me with their designs. I hunt with the 4-20 a lot as it is; I just don't like all the weight. The compromise is worth it, but I'd give up the windage knob, go with a lighter elevation knob design, and give up some of the internal travel for a lighter weight scope (perhaps allowing a smaller tube). Most hunting rifles you'd expect to see this kind of optic on are going to have 6mil interrupted or straight rails already, and won't be 308s trying to lob bullets out to 2000 yards and need all that elevation in addition to the base.

Just my opinion, again, though. I'm sure some would prefer the 2-16 or w/e range.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....
How about a 27oz 4-20x44 . Capped windage. 10 mil / turn . 30mm tube ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Huckmeat, Vandoogle13, Bakwa and 1 other person
#379
I'd love to see some competition in the extreme low light mid power segment.
*Say 2-16x
*60mm objective
*PRS style turrets
*Simple but effective Mil reticle with switching choice of centre ret illumination only or full ret illumination ability.
*True to Obj/power ratio exit pupil diameter all the way through the power range.
*34mm tube
*FFP reticle.
*standard colours Black & Ral8000.
Shouldn't be too much to ask.
 
#380
Barelstroker said:
I'd love to see some competition in the extreme low light mid power segment.
*Say 2-16x
*60mm objective
*PRS style turrets
*Simple but effective Mil reticle with switching choice of centre ret illumination only or full ret illumination ability.
*True to Obj/power ratio exit pupil diameter all the way through the power range.
*34mm tube
*FFP reticle.
*standard colours Black & Ral8000.
Shouldn't be too much to ask.
Click to expand...
C141E114-00C4-4C1E-8FA8-2EB3990941F3.gif
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: lancetkenyon, deersniper, goatboy and 4 others
#381
CoriolisEffect said:
So how much FoV is acceptable/necessary at the 2.5x-3x range? The 3-20US and NX8 2.5-20 are both around 39-42ft. Seems there isn't much potential benefit in that 0.5x. Personally, I still like the 3-16 range since it could use their existing erector geometry that is widely known to work well.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see around 50' or greater FOV at the bottom. NF NX8 and S&B US come close, but their struggle is weight, again the NX8 is probably the best we have today in this regard at just over 28oz it is decent for a 50mm objective.

The design intent would be something that fills the gap between an LPVO and a long range scope, think of something that would be in between a 1-8/10 and a 3-15 but could bridge the gap between both if needed. A 2-16 or wide angle 2.5-15 with an offset RDS could replace an LPVO for some as well as provide enough top end to replace a 3-15, it would be short enough to work with clip ons, light enough that it doesn't seem like a brick compared to an LPVO, capped windage (with a decent turret underneath) and a smallish elevation turret with max 10 mil per rev. 42/44mm objective to keep things slim as well as help reduce weight along with 30mm tube - elevation travel doesn't have to be enormous but something in the mid to upper 20's would be more than enough (again, for design intent).

Will people still want a lightweight 4-20, absolutely (I am one of them), but that is a different design intent. I'd also love to see a FFP 3.5-21x56 from someone as a crossover design for hunting and LR, another undiscovered niche is the large objective medium range FFP scope, Blaser got it right with their GSO designed 4-20x58 but then crippled usability with their stupid reticle and turrets, if Minox were to get the design (Blaser and Minox have a relationship) and put in their reticle and their turrets they'd have a big seller IMHO.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Just Macca, jafo96, HaydenLane and 1 other person
#382
CSTactical said:
We've been having this conversation with ZCO for many years now, it's no easy task :)
Click to expand...

Not picking on ZCO, but in regards to the optics industry, I've sort of ran out of patience with the "it takes time to develop" excuse. I say this having watched companies spend ridiculous amounts of time and resources on idiotic 8x, 9x, 10x ratios. They've pissed away enough time to bear fruit no one wants. (I say this as a long-time S&B user that patiently watched 7 Shot shows come and go...before getting a taste of 1/2 of what was promised)

The worst offender is all the time and effort spent on LPVO's and ultimately gaining little ground in the grand scheme of things. Practically speaking, the biggest leap was the step from the $2200 Short Dot 1.1-4x20mm to the significantly less-expensive Razor HD 2 1-6x. Rather than make a mediocre 1-10x or crank out a $5.5k "Dual CC" 1-8x, How about we take a step back and maybe consider making a 1-6x 16oz that doesn't suck.

I feel that the void in MPVO is just another example of the cost of chasing the "more power" dragon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HaydenLane, jbuck88, Big Ern and 2 others
#383
dms416 said:
Not picking on ZCO, but in regards to the optics industry, I've sort of ran out of patience with the "it takes time to develop" excuse. I say this having watched companies spend ridiculous amounts of time and resources on idiotic 8x, 9x, 10x ratios. They've pissed away enough time to bear fruit no one wants. (I say this as a long-time S&B user that patiently watched 7 Shot shows come and go...before getting a taste of 1/2 of what was promised)

The worst offender is all the time and effort spent on LPVO's and ultimately gaining little ground in the grand scheme of things. Practically speaking, the biggest leap was the step from the $2200 Short Dot 1.1-4x20mm to the significantly less-expensive Razor HD 2 1-6x. Rather than make a mediocre 1-10x or crank out a $5.5k "Dual CC" 1-8x, How about we take a step back and maybe consider making a 1-6x 16oz that doesn't suck.

I feel that the void in MPVO is just another example of the cost of chasing the "more power" dragon.
Click to expand...

This is very accurate. I just grabbed another ATACR 4-16x42. It's been a long time since I sold my last one and chased all the newer stuff and after mounting and shooting this scope on a hunting/crossover rifle it really does hold up. The 16x is about perfect and I could live with 4x on the bottom, but would prefer a little less. However it would be nice in a 30mm tube and 5-6oz lighter. And non-rotating eye piece!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lancetkenyon, Bakwa and Big Ern
#384
I’m no engineer but it seems if they can execute a 2.5-15 well, then a 4-24 or even a 4-28 shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility. Just taking the NX8 for example, everyone seems to like the 4-32 better (I’ve never been behind one) so it seems the higher mag Ganges are easier to execute well. Maybe it’s taking so much time because it’s a change to their whole lineup. A guy can dream right?

A 2-16 on a gasser and a 4-28 on a bolt gun would be sweet. Especially as thermal clip ons continue to advance
 
  • Like
Reactions: jafo96
#385
dms416 said:
Not picking on ZCO, but in regards to the optics industry, I've sort of ran out of patience with the "it takes time to develop" excuse. I say this having watched companies spend ridiculous amounts of time and resources on idiotic 8x, 9x, 10x ratios. They've pissed away enough time to bear fruit no one wants. (I say this as a long-time S&B user that patiently watched 7 Shot shows come and go...before getting a taste of 1/2 of what was promised)

The worst offender is all the time and effort spent on LPVO's and ultimately gaining little ground in the grand scheme of things. Practically speaking, the biggest leap was the step from the $2200 Short Dot 1.1-4x20mm to the significantly less-expensive Razor HD 2 1-6x. Rather than make a mediocre 1-10x or crank out a $5.5k "Dual CC" 1-8x, How about we take a step back and maybe consider making a 1-6x 16oz that doesn't suck.

I feel that the void in MPVO is just another example of the cost of chasing the "more power" dragon.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with vortex 1-10?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoriolisEffect
#387
deersniper said:
3-15 is a good deal. Offer a mpct3 esque reticle and make it super image friendly when combine with thermal clip ons.
Click to expand...
I originally said 3-16 way back in this thread since it should be viable with the 527 erector geometry (~5.4, so technically 3x-16.2x). That range would give the low end advantage over an ATACR 4-16 and the top end advantage over the TT315.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lancetkenyon, HaydenLane, Bakwa and 2 others
#388
deersniper said:
What is wrong with vortex 1-10?
Click to expand...

In short, it's a decent optic but very over-valued amongst its fanbase (especially in the pre-release and early release days). No new ground has really been broken performance wise despite the 2x additional which gains nothing over several 8x from Schmidt, Kahles, Swaro and some others. There's a couple of points on it where they made some savvy moves fixing some issues their peers did not, but I feel it is far from a stand-out in the market...but the price is constantly dropping on it so that's a big plus in its favor and it's much more of a heavy-hitter in the sub-$2k range than against the $3-3.5k big dogs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
#389
rlsmith1 said:
I’m no engineer but it seems if they can execute a 2.5-15 well, then a 4-24 or even a 4-28 shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility. Just taking the NX8 for example, everyone seems to like the 4-32 better (I’ve never been behind one) so it seems the higher mag Ganges are easier to execute well. Maybe it’s taking so much time because it’s a change to their whole lineup. A guy can dream right?
Click to expand...
The reason some prefer the 4-32 over the 2.5-20 is due to the design of the scope itself, not necessarily the mag range. The 4-32 happens to be a longer scope and longer scopes with high magnification erectors tend to be more forgiving with eyebox, DOF and parallax than their shorter counterparts.

I have confidence that ZCO is aware of these issues and has the engineering prowess to respond appropriately with a new design that does not compromise - the current ZCO 4-20x50 is an ultra short design that is one of the most, if not "the most", forgiving scopes in the areas mentioned above (eyebox, DOF and parallax).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moose, Bakwa, rlsmith1 and 3 others
#390
deersniper said:
Offer a mpct3 esque reticle and make it super image friendly when combine with thermal clip ons.
Click to expand...

Reticles are what they are and everybody has their "flavor" that they insist is the best.

I remain dubious that reticle selection isn't going to be fucked up too.

Those of us that have done the Gen 2 XR in a 3-15 Theta already know the harsh truth of wha't going to happen with your thin, kick-ass 0.2 mil stadia reticle that's the heat 12x up to the 20-27x top end HPVO's is going to suck dick in this MPVO range...at least for 2/3 of the power range. I mean, "I'm never gonna go below...1#x" is not the song some of us are going to sing. If this bullshit is gonna cost me four digits starting with a "3" (at the very least), I want the whole thing.

Despite all their fuck-ups, S&B finally got one right in the sense of scale of the MDR-t6. That tree is appropriate for the zoom level. The H27D on the CQBSS for example...not so much.

Maybe take a page out of the MSR/MSR2 and not skeletonize the duplex. Maybe 0.5 mil stadia is adequate. Maybe your tree goes with some more pronounced stadia every other mil like a Gen 2 XR so I can actually see these fucking things on 6-8x.

If I needed all the bullshit of a 3-20US or ZCO4-20, I'd sack up and go to town with one of those and accept the weight penalty for the power and additional input I get with that reticle/power combo.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Bakwa and Vynz
#392
dms416 said:
Reticles are what they are and everybody has their "flavor" that they insist is the best.

I remain dubious that reticle selection isn't going to be fucked up too.

Those of us that have done the Gen 2 XR in a 3-15 Theta already know the harsh truth of wha't going to happen with your thin, kick-ass 0.2 mil stadia reticle that's the heat 12x up to the 20-27x top end HPVO's is going to suck dick in this MPVO range...at least for 2/3 of the power range. I mean, "I'm never gonna go below...1#x" is not the song some of us are going to sing. If this bullshit is gonna cost me four digits starting with a "3" (at the very least), I want the whole thing.

Despite all their fuck-ups, S&B finally got one right in the sense of scale of the MDR-t6. That tree is appropriate for the zoom level. The H27D on the CQBSS for example...not so much.

Maybe take a page out of the MSR/MSR2 and not skeletonize the duplex. Maybe 0.5 mil stadia is adequate. Maybe your tree goes with some more pronounced stadia every other mil like a Gen 2 XR so I can actually see these fucking things on 6-8x.

If I needed all the bullshit of a 3-20US or ZCO4-20, I'd sack up and go to town with one of those and accept the weight penalty for the power and additional input I get with that reticle/power combo.
Click to expand...
The best reticle works fine in the 4-20.

I’m sure they can make it or a variation work fine in the 3-15
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoriolisEffect and Vynz
#397
deersniper said:
What is wrong with vortex 1-10?
Click to expand...

I currently have a Vortex Razor G3 1-10 on my Zev Small Frame 6.5 Creedmoor. It the lightest feature complete afforadable LPVO on the market. The only similarly priced lighter LPVO is the NX8 which everyone on the hide shits all over.

The March 1-10 Dual Reticle is lighter and has parallax adjustment ( as well as other Alpha brands) but they are nearly twice as much money as the Razor.

In its class the Vortex 1-10 is a great well executed scope but it falls down like all LPVOs do above 6x. The objective is small, and there is no parallax adjustment. If I put the Razor G3 1-10 on 8x next to the LHT 4.5-22 on 8x the LHT looks so much better- partly due to the larger objective and parallax adjustments.

For people who run offset or piggybacked RDS anyway having a 1x which is the LPVO raison d’etre isn’t that important. Instead they prefer better midrange magnification performance. In this context a 2x-16x with a large objective and parallax that weights around 20oz makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
#398
Vynz said:
It the lightest feature complete afforadable LPVO on the market. The only similarly priced lighter LPVO is the NX8 which everyone on the hide shits all over.
Click to expand...

They're right to on the NX8...it's only good at being light and small. NF didn't even bother to give it the reticle "fix" that they did with its bigger brother ATACR. The desire to defend and save face with that one is STRONG.

I've yet to see one thats fully "feature complete". EVERY SINGLE LPVO has fleas. Some more than others. I could sit here all day and give you the Good, Bad, and Ugly of all of them. Where they shine...where others eat their lunch.

...well not March stuff...I won't touch March given they never seem to pan out to ever be what eveyone wants them to be. Way too many "go March" and then come back or go radio silent...:unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: lancetkenyon
#399
dms416 said:
They're right to on the NX8...it's only good at being light and small. NF didn't even bother to give it the reticle "fix" that they did with its bigger brother ATACR. The desire to defend and save face with that one is STRONG.
Click to expand...
Have you used one?

Best scope out there for thermal clip ons.

Mil xt works fine. For me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
ZCO customer service
Replies
24
Views
670
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
Jojo417
Rifle Scopes Upgrade from Athlon Ares Etr
Replies
2
Views
348
Jojo417
Jojo417
Surly
SOLD ZCO 527 MPCT1
Replies
13
Views
1K
BassUSMC
B
F
Rifle Scopes ZCO Warranty Experience
Replies
18
Views
1K
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
I
JTAC Reticle Details - why this design?
Replies
16
Views
567
NateVA
N
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts