Zco lpvo???

#101
I think the NF FC DMX is a great reticle as well as the Vudu SR-4
This HTR also, depending upon how it looks in the flesh.

If I was building for anything between a 1-10 and 2-12, I would probably start with a Leupold PR-2 (for their .25 mil hashes) and open up the center gap to 2.0 mil in size and enclose it via 0.25 mil thick circle, open slightly at the bottom to see the 1 mil vertical hash. I would number every whole mil instead of every other, and integrate them by alternating the odds to be close to the vertical. I would start my numbering at 2 mil, leaving out the "1".

I would remove the 0.1 mil lines in the vertical located between 3 and 4 mil. Those would be changed to a .2 ladder and located off to the side in the lower left quadrant of the scope.

I would stop the vertical at 10 MIL and thicken below it to be the same as the horizontal lines leading into the reticle (but I would stop the horizontal at 5 mil) and I would make them all thicker with a leading point (Like Kahles SM1)

Finally I would add a ZCO "fatal funnel" located in the same general area as the .2 mil ladder. I would add EXACTLY their funnel, because it allows ranging of 6" 9" 12" and 18" width targets with hardly any thinking involved.

Then I would retire.

I am looking for a reason to try this ZCO. I have a PWS UXR on the way in 6.5CM, and I am thinking that may fit really well.
 
Last edited:
#102
This is very true, which is why I typically try to qualify my reticle preferences as just that - they are personal preference. The reticle choices have kept me away from certain manufacturers and some that I really like outside of the reticle, ZCO and Schmidt fall into that category. Now that Schmidt has the Turd (TR2ID) reticle, I might actually give them serious consideration again. ZCO now has a lot of different reticle options but none that excite me, I've been hoping for a "dot" tree like the Gen3 XR. Now that Schmidt has a dot tree reticle for their 6-36x56 this is a lot more compelling than both the 5-27 and 8-40 options from ZCO, again, my opinion to be taken with a grain of salt.
I suppose ZCO is now gaining somewhat of a cult following similar to NF and Leupold where it seems nothing is wrong with anything they put their name on. I try to keep an open mind, I tried the MPCT3x in a 5-27 a couple years ago and just couldn't get into those circles, they bugged me and the thick solid lines of the horizontal tree in the MPCT2 are too thick and take away form the clean image the optics in ZCO provide which leaves the MPCT1 as the reticle of choice (for me) within the ZCO line, but I like to have a "clean" tree with dots that doesn't distract or take away from the overall image, just wish ZCO would offer that as an option is all.

Specific to this 2-10x30, I do not know who was asking for that? For years we have had the ZCO 2-16 thread which has garnered a lot of interest, many think if ZCO delved into the 8x erector world they would do an amazing job but I knew from the beginning that with ZCO's philosophy of "zero compromise" an 8x erector would be difficult because it makes the optical design finicky especially if in a shorter body. That said, Vortex, Schmidt and some others have proven you can make a very forgiving 6x design and I hope other manufacturers can capitalize on this as I do feal with today's optical technology you can make a very forgiving 6x erector. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for a 2-10x30 but it is not a place that I think a lot of shooters looking for an MPVO were hoping for...
 
#104
As far as I’m aware the LPVO started over 100 years ago in 1922. Thanks Zeiss!

And in the 90s it was pretty well established that 1.5 was too much and 1x was needed for close quarters use, and we ended up with the Schmidt and bender short dot 1.1-4 scope.

I think 2x is too much magnification for what we know to be an LPVO. But if zco can redefine the term then fine by me.
I’m sure it will slaughter virtually every other LPVO at virtually all comparable power settings.

As far as mpvo? I don’t know as much of the history.
 
#105

Yes, Zeiss produced the "Zielmulti" which translates to "Multi Target," not LPVO. The term LPVO has only come to be coined in more recent decades. They have predominantly been 1-1.5x min power, because that was all that was really pushed in that field for a more compact package and smaller objectives, and they kept the top magnification lower. They also didn't have the availabilty of red dots and mounts with various offsets that we have developed over the last few decades. Over the years, magnification has also increased up to as high as 10x, while still maintaining a more compact optic. Most 2x-10 or higher had larger and longer objectives than a 30mm (the ZCO is a 30mm), adding significantly to the length/profile and subsequently falling out of the entire idea of it being compact with a low power variable optic. And only recently in the last year has the term "MPVO" popped up, and some continue to try and push it as a newly minted industry coined term, but it falls short for numerous reasons because a wide array of sizes that do fall under "high power" optics. If we're going to define LPVO by subjective criteria some have adopted as industry members defined it in publications, then you might as well omit anything above a 4x as the maxmimum power as well. Fact is, most who use them with some frequency, whether in competition, tactical, or hunting, they still utilize 1x offset red dot anyways, and the idea was to focus more on clarity, resolution, and maxmimum light transmission for that crowd that demands it.
 
#106

The numbers were copied/transcribed wrong from meters to yards by a guy who hadn't had enough coffee that morning. For yards, it's 55.8'-12'. The objective was transcribed wrong as well, and it's 30mm with a 38mm tube diameter.
 
#107
I like to nerd out as much as the next person, but the minutia discussed here spins my head at times. IMO ZCO wanted to use their tried and trued ~5x erector to make a premium compact 2-10 that will fit well for a precision gas gun type roll, clip on/thermal use, hunting etc... And without some super lightweight 8 or 10X erector that looks great on paper but doesn't achieve their goal overall optically. This 2-10 and 4-20 cover those areas pretty well IMO. 1-8 and 1-10 LPVO's work great for many but not for everyone.

-Richard
 
#108
This forum has too many people complaining about S* that they’re never going to buy, making request for S*, that they’ll never buy.

ZCO can check 8/10 boxes and these mf’ers will cry about the 2 that didn't get marked off. Good ole hide for ya…
 
#112
In virtually every thread for every new product there will be people complaining about something, many things are just stupid nit picks or personal preference for certain.

In this case though the complaints are justified. It's not folk asking for a magical 8/10/12x erector scope here, the complaints are coming from reasonable people here.

27oz is stupid for an optic of this style.
If Leupold got a swing and a miss score for their 24oz 2-10, then I'm not sure what this deserves?

You'll be forgiven for not following along with all talk about MPVOs as it's a pretty niche topic with some big opinions.
But this ZCO probably ticks 50% of the boxes at most, definitely not 80%.

I'm sure ZCO will sell a bunch of these things and yeah I won't be one of them because for a "non compromised optic", they seem to have made plenty of compromises and they are all in the wrong places.
 
#114
There is also a lot of us on this forum that reward good feature sets with insta-buys. I wouldn't underestimate the value of providing your end users with what they are openly asking for.
 
#120

Absolutely; however, often times the most vocal on forums are also often the minority and not the majority. They also don't speak for all end-users in general, but a niche group that granted while their needs are not necessarily being fully met by the available market options, that's due to the reality that it's a small subset and not enough market capture to cover doing what they're requesting, especially if it's a newer company looking to grab a reasonable size market share with new products.

And I'll add just to be frank... there's a couple users here that will always complain about anything ZCO does, because they have an axe to grind, even if it did tick 8 of the 10 boxes as Jorge stated and I agree with, lol.
 
#121

:rolleyes:

All the forums are dead. Everyone's pretty much left; but this is the only game in town for this stuff. So some of us suffer through hillbillyBMXers, Pirates, beforedismounts, and other nonsense.

Ironic, I just finally signed up for IG myself in the hopes of alleviating my need for this place.
 
#122

LOL. No......this thread is essentially a first world problems entitled bitch fest. People are literally complaining about dots vs circles and 27oz when something as small as a PEQ weighs over 7oz itself. A lot of clip ons will weight from half of this optic up to even weighing more than this optic.

And the reason LPVO vs MPVO is such a niche topic is because it only matters to people on the internet.
 
#124
Everyone online is always trying to do too much with these type of optics. If you have an actual true need for a 1x, you're far better off with an RDS and a magnifier.

If you are in actual true need of more magnification and an etched reticle, then you're better off with a LPVO/MPVO. Then you either deal with the most of the time not a true 1x or the 2x optics when you need to use it that low.....or you put an offset micro rds.

Trying to fit all of those uses into a single optic just isn't realistic. And that's the reason for the whole LPVO/MPVO ridiculousness. No one is pieing corners and then running out to make 500yd engagements right after in real life. Just on forums.


This optic is designed for those who want the features of ZCO products in a LPVO/MPVO optic. Which means it's going to be heavier. This is not a competitor to sub 20oz LPVO.
 
Last edited:
#125
Yeah, thats kinda the whole point of the MPVO concept....

I'm not sure what's so controversial here.
We have dozens of options for 1-6/8/10 scopes, dozens of 3/4-15/18/20 scopes, dozens of hunting scopes.

What we don't have is any good options in the 2-10, 2-12, 3-12 range for someone who wants FFP, Mil and other modern features in a smallish and lightweight ish package.
Not for strapping to a AR with 10lb of other shit hanging off it, but for use on a hunting rifle or another some other lightweight general purpose rifle.
This might not be something you are interested in but there have been a bunch of threads started on this topic over the years by a variety of people, so it's not just 1 or 2 people complaining.

I also don't see how the weight of this things isn't an issue. Vortex came out with the G2e 1-6 to address the weight issue of original 1-6, when they released the 1-10 they intentionally tried to keep the weight the same as the G2e 1-6.
The AMG 1-10 they've made is even lighter weight still.

Sure there are some stupid criticisms here that genuine buyers of this optic don't give a shit about, but trying to brush of any and all criticism is equally inane.
 
#126
What do you mean by longer objective, do you mean a longer focal length,?
What is the difference between a compact LPVO and a non-compact LPVO?
Not sure where you are getting that data, many on the Hide have been using that term for at least a few years if not longer, various definitions of it have been passed around but the term in general has been in use for a while now.
What is the industry definition for "high power" optics?
Who defined these terms to begin with? There is no official reference manual (that I am aware of) that has clearly delineated different types of scopes. The term "crossover" was another term coined here on the Hide (or at least that is where I first saw it), it wasn't so much that anyone was trying to identify a completely new scope design but simply to identify a feature set that was desired, I see the MPVO as simply that as well - "here is a list of features we would like to see in future scope offerings". For some there are existing scope designs that will suffice but with minor tweaks (like the reticle and/or illumination) but for others they would like to see a scope specifically designed for this niche.

Some of the complaints in this thread likely stem from the ZCO 2-16 thread, a thread which ZCO themselves said they were watching closely and said they would be working on something close. ZCO never said their 1.7-12x50 was a result, nor have they said this 2-10x30 is a result, but since these are the scopes ZCO has introduced that come close I think it is natural that some would think, "is the 2-10x30 ZCO's answer to the 2-16 thread?". As Beetroot indicated above, many were very critical of the Leupold Mark 5 2-10x30 introduced last year and similar comments of "this is not what we're looking for arose". Again, I don't think anybody is saying there is no use case for a 2-10x30, but the use case for a 2-10x30 seems much more niche than a 2-12x42 for example which would have much wider acceptance in not just an MPVO scenario but also within the crossover community.
 
#128
And Bill, I try and read all these threads. But I don’t ever remember anyone from ZCO ever saying they were making something similar.
I speak to Jeff multiple times a week and he never said they were making one. Was the 2-16 thread discussed? Absolutely
 
#129
I'm definitely intrigued for a carbine optic (even more so if Badger will make a 36mm C1). I'm already comfortable with running offset RDS on a scoped carbine. I like LPVO's in 1-4x or 1-6x, SFP, with daylight bright illumination and simple reticles. Anything more powerful than that and I like the scope to have mid- to long range features and let my RDS handle closer or quicker targets.
 
#130
They actually do. It's called competing and there are a few shooting disciplines that do just that.

As for the real world, I can tell if I had to grab one rifle it won't be a 26 lb behemoth with a 5-25 on it, but a lightweight carbine running a LPVO/MPVO.

"Pieing corners and then running out to make 500 yard engagements" is a far more practical and useful skill set in my opinion than lying on your belly, statically, making hits with 5 devices bluetoothed together to let you know where to aim. As always, your mileage may vary.
 
#131
I never said ZCO said they were making one, I said "ZCO themselves said they were watching closely and said they would be working on something close", maybe you extrapolated "something close" to mean they were but that was never my intent.

But I'll take you up on the challenge, I just mulled through the 12 pages of the ZCO 2-16 thread and here's what I came up with from ZCO:






For me, these are some pretty strong hints towards something far different from a 2-10x30 hence why I said "something close". What we don't know at this time is whether or not this 2-10x30 is the design that ZCO has been alluding to in the 2-16 thread for the past few years??? If the 2-10 is the scope referenced in the 2-16 thread, then I would say that is not the scope that most were hoping for, in fact, regarding a 2-10 I am unaware of any threads asking for ZCO to make a 2-10x30 scope so that leads to the curiosity of where the inspiration for this 2-10x30 came from which is what has led some to think there could be some .mil contract with possibly an NDA right now so neither ZCO nor Leupold can say one way or the other. But the question remains as to whether or not the ZCO 2-10x30 is the scope referenced in the 2-16 thread, and so I do no derail this thread any further I will take that question over to that thread.
 
#132


Call Jeff and ask... Business decisions are not always going to public, nor should they be. Designs that seem like a great idea do not always pan out .

ZCO is accessible unlike most vendors who were ran off the hide, it's good or the community for them and other vendors that are left to participate.

-Richard
CS Tactical
916-628-3490
 
#133


And what those cats fail to realize is that rarely are the bookends of these 0-whatever scenarios tell the tale. It's my "Tell me you don't run guns without telling me"

Most ACTUAL high-end LPVO and "MPVO" users ultimately want the same stuff...so the MMV's really don't vary. Sadly the gamer, the timmy, and the great white hunter all want something slightly different...so we're all fucked.

I want to be able to maneuver extremely fast from 30-250y when I'm playing in 1.5-4x
I want to have reticle/turret that I can make that shot on a partial target (be it a baddy behind cover, small varmint, or small MOA plate) at 425y in Midwest wind
I want to have the optical horsepower to confidently push past previous limits...with my S&B Dual CC...I'm limited beyond 500 on anything less than a 1/2 IPSC. With a ZCO 10x...I'd expect to push that to another 20% and for that number to be 600y.
And I'm not ashamed, I want to do belly stuff when the spirit moves me... I want to be able to do that stupid human trick 1000y shot if I'm dicking around or, it comes up as that one shot in a match...

...and I want to do it all with an optic that isn't mis-matched for my sub-10lb rig so that I like taking the gun out and using it.
 
#134
We are on the same page. It's not surprising at all to me we are currently using the same LPVO. I will say, you should be able to push that dual CC to 600 pretty easily. 3 shot group below is with the dual CC at 600 w/ the 13.7" prior to making adjustments.

 
#135
Cantilevered 36mm is a really small market, only a handful of players right now though I think ZCO is producing their own cantilever mount now? Off hand I can think of Geissele (seen it in stock once or twice in several years), Tier One, Spuhr, and F3R.
 
#136

Brother, don't misunderstand....I can take it MUCH further than 600, but 500-600 is merely an "administrative" cap based on conditions I've encountered that could compromise seeing/IDing/locating targets.

Here's a 10 (or maybe 11) round group on a .7" dot:
 
#138

I understand and agree. I'm not stuck on a particular mount (or optic) but I like the C1 mount and and accessories and now that I have a grip of them, I don't want another mount with another set of accessories or have to use a stand-alone offset RDS mount like an Arisaka.

As it has been mentioned here before: first world problems.
 
#139

I'll let you believe that then...

(....call me Phillip...bastard). :ROFLMAO:


Might could be just a rack-grade Danny-D gov barrel at zero confirm...but this is Sniper's hide, so yeah....600....Meters...ALL DAY...WHEN I DO MY PART.....on a can of Redbull....:whistle:

But here's one from 770ish for real...just one shot...cold....off the RRS:
 
#141
Yeah the weight is up there but once you have a VCOG, you kinda start to not care as much about weight.

I may not be able to afford this ZCO for now, but I’m still interested once they get into people’s hands.
 
#142
What about he ZCO 2-10x30 are you drawn to?
If you are happy using an RDS for close range targets, why not get something in the 3-15/18 range that is similar weight to the ZCO? If you are using the RDS for close shots why the need for 2x on the low end?

Is it for the high end optics ZCO are known for, or that it's still small and compact like an 1-10 LPVO?

Honest questions here, personally this scope doesn't make any sense to me so interested to here from someone who does like the design.
 
#143

IMHO too many focusing on the weight numbers and not weight distribution. Not ideal, but I had a CQBSS with offset T1 on an SR25….this optic on an SPR won’t kill me

Think of it working against the space of
Mk5 2-10
CQBSS
Nxs 2.5-10x42

And a ZCO 10x would probably require most others to jump up to maybe 12x or more to have the same image…much like the Dual CC 8x loses nothing to a Vortex 10x despite the differential.

I’ll probably get one because it does (or will eventually) exist rather than waiting for unicorns that will never be built despite making mor supposed sense.
 
Last edited:
#144
I think this thing is going to be sweet. There’s several platforms this would be perfect for. I’ll probably sell my 4-16 ATACRs and buy a couple.
 
#145
@CSTactical, what is the illumination situation on these (if that info has been lined out…I did not see it specifically noted)?

Are we talking full power/daylight bright like an ATACR 1-8…or more in line with what currently exists on the other ZCO scopes like the 4-20 (decently bright, but not fully daytime bright/“red dot” style)? Thanks!
 
#149
Given that ZCO has one of the brightest illumination modules in the industry with their existing models, even if the illumination module stays the same, the fact that the illuminated portion of these reticles (especially the HTR) is thicker, this will allow more light to be reflected so will likely appear brighter than the much thinner reticle for example from the ZCO 4-20. I predict this reticle and illumination will do very well.

 
#150

I have a ZCO 5-27 and it is the nicest glass I have ever owned (NF, S&B); a lower range magnification optic from them with the same clear glass is attractive to me.

I've had a couple carbines set up with mid-range scopes (NF 2.5-10x32 and USO 1.8-10x37) and I was satisfied with the magnification range for a carbine. The current rifle I am looking to replace a scope on has a White Oak Armament 16" DMR barrel. I had a Leupold Mk5 3.6-18 scope with a Tremor 3 reticle, so the 3-18ish range is not out of consideration. With ZCO vs ZCO, the 2-10 is about 10 oz lighter than the 4-20. Weight is lower on my choice metric, but 10 oz is a good chunk.

As far as the scope low end magnification and RDS, I'm not terribly worried if the bottom of my magnification starts at 2x or 4x or whatever. On my particular rifle, it's still a 16" carbine and an RDS is common across all my carbines, scoped or standalone.

Finally, my eyes are old and they like the ZCO glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts