Zco lpvo???

#203
CSTactical said:
I was referring to the exit pupil on similar scopes, one being a 5x erector and the other a 10x erector

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it can be difficult. But I do not know if this design was completely made from scratch or a variation odf their current design since it is using the same eyepiece design and erector of their higher mag scopes.

Smaller companies tend to use and share proven equations that work, larger companies may have gov contracts with sky high R&D and thousands of employees at their will. I look at what Sig Sauer USA is doing as an example in the firearm world in general.


Is it heavier but coming to the market in a short time? Yes! Could they have started from scratch and made a lighter overall setup? Yes, but when would it launch? 2026?

-Richard
Click to expand...
Exit pupil on 10x (which is what you mentioned) is going to be exactly the same in a 1-10x scope as in a 2-10x scope as long as the objective diameter is the same.

Exit pupil on lower magnifications does tend to get a little smaller on high erector ratio designs, though not necessarily. There are examples that go both ways.

As I said, if I was them, I'd be reusing the eyepiece and erector too even if it compromised weight. For their intended customer, commonality of user experience and keeping price marginally manageable is probably worth a few ounces of weight.

ILya
 
  • Like
Reactions: gebhardt02, Bakwa, Powdermonkey4 and 1 other person
#204
Ordnance Locker said:
It still comes out like a generated image, and people still complain it does not look the same as looking through the glass, because lo and behold... it's not the same. I've done it, countless times. Your idea of 99.9% like the real thing, and the actual impression consumers get once they get behind the glass does not correlate. Again, those of us in the industry have been trying to figure out a solution, but nothing has presented other than everyone suggesting AI, and then we still end up with consumer complaints that the image isn't the same, and the subsequent requests like we just saw here even after we both said it would happ
Click to expand...

If your end product looks like a generated image - inputs are messed up, simply user error or combo of both.
 
#206
Ordnance Locker said:
You must be right. I must just be totally ignorant in optics, photography, and/or generating imagery for marketing to match user experience. Lol...
Click to expand...

Am not trying to offend you.

Pretty much any other market has made images/vids work to meet user experience/expectations. Hell, it’s easy enough now that scammers are making realistic (but falsified) blackmail/scam vids & pics in minutes, once they have the content required.
 
#207
From ZCO’s reposted story, DMR reticle looksie:

IMG_2396.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: chase723, Makinchips208 and Powdermonkey4
#217
As I wait impatiently for the release of this scope, I’m curious if anyone knows of a good mounting solution for a piggyback RMR on a 36mm scope?
 
#219
Soupcan said:
As I wait impatiently for the release of this scope, I’m curious if anyone knows of a good mounting solution for a piggyback RMR on a 36mm scope?
Click to expand...


ZCO will have their own options available as well, and they are working on RMR and ACRO adapters.

I can't wait to get one and throw it on a precision large frame gas gun :cool:

Richard
 
  • Like
Reactions: USNIGHTGUNNER, Bakwa and Soupcan
#220
boomslang said:
DMR is looking good. The same shot of the HTR reticle would be great.

And if ZCO would just release the price point…

View attachment 8399329
Click to expand...
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it is going to be somewhere south of current 4-20 pricing ;) Don’t expect “cheap” but I also don’t think it’s going to be S&B short dot territory either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boomslang
#221
I’m not sure if this site is legitimate or no (I haven’t heard any info on the ZC210 being released already in Europe, so I have my doubts), but if it is, once converting from EUR to USD, it’s around $3000-3100 USD (excluding tax), which is about what I imagined. Again, not sure about the credibility of the site though.

https://www.solidsolutiondesigns.com/product/zero-compromise-optics-zc210-mil-210/
 
  • Like
Reactions: PBWalsh
#225
Burdy said:
Look, half the beauty of owning the short dot is knowing that if ever decide to part with it for anything else, you are putting money back in your pocket.
Click to expand...

Ideally, yes... I done made that mistake of selling off some Short Dots only to see them get discontinued or double in price while I was off dicking around with these other lpvo's.

I'm looking along the lines of this 27oz 2-10 ZCO that's probably going to be 3400-3800 if I had to guess and saying:
- "Fuck that....Imma go get me a new S&B 520US instead"
(logs into EuroOptic and sees 5-20 prices WITH discount)....:mad:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bakwa
#232
Rio Precision Gunworks said:
…

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.
…
Click to expand...

Many people have been in pretty much that exact scenario in GWOT.

Rio Precision Gunworks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, which makes it even more important that a 2-10 isn’t 27oz. The 36mm is another issue here, because I don’t know of a light-ish weight cantilever mount for 36mm. Geissele’s is ~10oz. So, we’re looking at 37oz just to get the optic on the rifle. Vs other 10x top end LPVOs being able to get us 23-27oz packages. 10-14oz is a serious weight difference to consider.

The reticles aren’t my cup of tea visually, but functionally I think the DMR/HTR would be fine. I do think that is a fairy small nit to pick.

Edit: looks like Tier One has a 7oz 36mm cantilever mount, so the difference is 7-11oz. Still, half a pound+ difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blaster7Romeo, Bakwa and Thorbeast
#233
PappyM3 said:
Many people have been in pretty much that exact scenario in GWOT.



Yes, which makes it even more important that a 2-10 isn’t 27oz. The 36mm is another issue here, because I don’t know of a light-ish weight cantilever mount for 36mm. Geissele’s is ~10oz. So, we’re looking at 37oz just to get the optic on the rifle. Vs other 10x top end LPVOs being able to get us 23-27oz packages. 10-14oz is a serious weight difference to consider.

The reticles aren’t my cup of tea visually, but functionally I think the DMR/HTR would be fine. I do think that is a fairy small nit to pick.

Edit: looks like Tier One has a 7oz 36mm cantilever mount, so the difference is 7-11oz. Still, half a pound+ difference.
Click to expand...

LOL. Typical internet.....always have to break things down in micro points for people to understand. Does it happen that you might be on a raid where you're running through small spaces and then back outside for engagements? Absolutely. However, that type of "cqb" is far different than your assault/hr type cqb. You don't have specialized assault/cqb/HR teams attempting to run LPVO's. You'll run a dedicated cqb rig with a magnifier to assist when you're not in the closer distances. But when your primary mission is cqb, you don't run an LPVO. You'll obviously have some running an LPVO, but their job is a bit different than the dedicated assaulter.

But half the internet thinks that you're gonna take a 1x LPVO and be meal time six inside a house and then carlos hamcock outside. Just not the way it works. You have to choose the RDS or LPVO for what you'll mostly be using it for. And then it's a pretty easy decision.


As far as weight, again.....just more forum chest thumping. No one fit enough to use these professionally is going to care about half a pound if the optic meets their needs/requirements.

If you did a blind Pepsi test with professionals where they have their rifles configured with two LPVO optics and don't have a spec sheet in front of them......you're almost never going to find someone who throws a flag on an optic for half a pound. Maybe if they are holding just the optic in each hand. Bu once its mounted, it's barely above noticeable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rbutcher, oldrifleman, 308pirate and 1 other person
#234
For furter lulz on weight. Here's the weight of some common setups. These are setups where you need to be able to move fast and in all kinds of positions. And people aren't moving to put less shit on their rifles, if anything, they are increasing things they attach to the rifle. If half a pound even remotely mattered, you wouldn't see these kinds of setups on so many rifles.

Weight complaints are for people online staring a spec sheet, not actual practicality. You're getting an absolute tank of an optic for about the same weight as very common setups already being used.

GBRS Hydra Mount: 5.7oz
Eotech EXPS: 11.2oz
Eotech G45 magnifier: 9.5oz
GBRS Unity Magnifier mount: 5.2oz

Total: 31.6oz

Eotech EXPS: 11.2oz
Eotech G45 magnifier with mount: 12.8oz

Total: 24oz

Eotech EXPS: 11.2oz
Unity riser: 3oz
Eotech G45: 9.5oz
Unity Magnifier mount: 5.5oz

Total: 29.2oz
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Bakwa
#235
Rio Precision Gunworks said:
LOL. Typical internet.....always have to break things down in micro points for people to understand. Does it happen that you might be on a raid where you're running through small spaces and then back outside for engagements? Absolutely. However, that type of "cqb" is far different than your assault/hr type cqb. You don't have specialized assault/cqb/HR teams attempting to run LPVO's. You'll run a dedicated cqb rig with a magnifier to assist when you're not in the closer distances. But when your primary mission is cqb, you don't run an LPVO. You'll obviously have some running an LPVO, but their job is a bit different than the dedicated assaulter.
Click to expand...

Who’s talking about specialized assaulters or hostage rescue folks running LPVOs? I’m talking about normal combat arms folks, bog-standard conventional infantry.

I’m sure the situation has also frequently happened to ODAs and 75th. I didn’t mention JSOC/HRT or anything like that, did I?

Laugh at “typical internet” all you want. I’m just telling you what I’ve seen and how it runs contrary to your claim.

Rio Precision Gunworks said:
But half the internet thinks that you're gonna take a 1x LPVO and be meal time six inside a house and then Carlos Hathcock outside. Just not the way it works. You have to choose the RDS or LPVO for what you'll mostly be using it for. And then it's a pretty easy decision.
Click to expand...
Most people aren’t swapping uppers for their specific patrol. Denigrate the concept all you want by casting your notions of other people’s fantasies onto the topic. But it doesn’t change the facts that situations DO occur (and somewhat regularly depending on the OE) where you’ll be working around buildings and have to immediately switch to contact you’re taking from 300-600 meters.

Rio Precision Gunworks said:
As far as weight, again.....just more forum chest thumping. No one fit enough to use these professionally is going to care about half a pound if the optic meets their needs/requirements.
Click to expand...
Okay. If it’s the only option that meets the functional requirements, then sure. But I don’t know a single soldier who doesn’t care about shaving half a pound of weight if it’s not needed. If there are multiple options and one weighs half a pound less, yes I’m taking that half a pound less. And so far, I’m not seeing anything about the ZCO that makes it unique in meeting functional requirements of the 2-10 realm.

Rio Precision Gunworks said:
If you did a blind Pepsi test with professionals where they have their rifles configured with two LPVO optics and don't have a spec sheet in front of them......you're almost never going to find someone who throws a flag on an optic for half a pound.
Click to expand...
Good hypothesis. But that’s all it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evolution 9 and Bakwa
#236
Rio Precision Gunworks said:
For furter lulz on weight. Here's the weight of some common setups. These are setups where you need to be able to move fast and in all kinds of positions. And people aren't moving to put less shit on their rifles, if anything, they are increasing things they attach to the rifle. If half a pound even remotely mattered, you wouldn't see these kinds of setups on so many rifles.

Weight complaints are for people online staring a spec sheet, not actual practicality. You're getting an absolute tank of an optic for about the same weight as very common setups already being used.

GBRS Hydra Mount: 5.7oz
Eotech EXPS: 11.2oz
Eotech G45 magnifier: 9.5oz
GBRS Unity Magnifier mount: 5.2oz

Total: 31.6oz

Eotech EXPS: 11.2oz
Eotech G45 magnifier with mount: 12.8oz

Total: 24oz

Eotech EXPS: 11.2oz
Unity riser: 3oz
Eotech G45: 9.5oz
Unity Magnifier mount: 5.5oz

Total: 29.2oz
Click to expand...
? How are red dot magnifiers at all a relevant comparison to a 2-10x optic? But, all those you listed are still lighter than the ZCO with mount. And you’re bringing up a goobers mount?

Compare it to relevantly similar optics like 1-10s (March, Vortex, Eotech), or 2-10s(Leupold, NF) with quality mounts and the ZCO is yet again a good bit chunkier.

Weights of shit add up. And if I’m going to be carrying a bunch of shit on a 36 hour patrol with an on-foot infiltration over undulating terrain, ditches, walls, hills, etc, yeah I’m going to want to save half a pound if I can. It doesn’t matter if my body armor weighs 30lbs and my pack weighs 50 lbs. A half a pound is not insignificant, especially when I have lights and lasers, and potentially a clip-on on the rifle already. It all adds up.
 
#237
@Rio Precision Gunworks clearly some people are getting caught up on 5-8oz like it’s a black hole of death and that somehow that trumps everything else. Lol. The level this conversation has devolved to is kind of unbelievable. Some people just can’t seem to see the forest through the trees. @PappyM3 what you bring up isn’t relevant to >99% of the people who will be buying the ZCO 2-10. And, to the other <1% it likely won’t matter to probably 50% of them. Sorry you’re butt hurt about it. Save yourself 4.5oz and go buy a Schmidt 1-8 dual cc short dot, and move on. I’ve owned and used a lot of the other 1-8x and 1-10x options mentioned in here, and sold them all because they never lived up to their expectations. I’m stoked ZCO is making this and will buy one as soon as it’s available, because while it weighs a tiny bit more it’s almost certainly going to be 1) Optomechanically excellent 2) Has adjustable parallax, which I want above 6x 3) Appears to have at least 2 decent reticle designs 4) Will have good illumination for when it’s needed 5) Will probably have significantly better low light performance than anything in its class, which I also want 6) Has good form factor 7) Will have excellent customer service in America 8) Will work awesome with clip ons 9) If I want/need 1x capability I’ll stick a red dot on it/run a laser 10) Doesn’t weigh that much.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: gebhardt02, charnicus, CSTactical and 2 others
#238
chase723 said:
@Rio Precision Gunworks clearly some people are getting caught up on 5-8oz like it’s a black hole of death and that somehow that trumps everything else. Lol. The level this conversation has devolved to is kind of unbelievable. Some people just can’t seem to see the forest through the trees.
Click to expand...

God forbid people criticize a ZCO product or point out any of its compromises.
chase723 said:
@PappyM3 what you bring up isn’t relevant to >99% of the people who will be buying the ZCO 2-10. And, to the other <1% it likely won’t matter to probably 50% of them. Sorry you’re butt hurt about it.
Click to expand...
It’s not about being butt hurt. It’s about Rio Precision’s ad hominem attacks against people who have a different opinion. It couldn’t be that other people have valid opinions different from his. No, it’s just that people with different opinions are mere internet dwellers who don’t have real world experience.

Do you think my experiences that back my opinion on the weight are limited to myself and infantry peers? You don’t think that it could be a corollary for backcountry hunters? Or people who have firearms for possible contingencies that could mirror infantry CONOPS?

If it fits all your needs that’s great. My point with Rio is that people are different. They have different CONOPS and considerations. It doesn’t make them internet-spec_sheet warriors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FatBoy
#239
AngryKoala said:
I'm just hoping for a side by side against the March 1.5-15 at the top ends of mag.
Click to expand...
Do you mean ZCO at 10x and March at 10x? I see these as two very different scopes designed for different purposes and expect the ZCO to do extremely well optically within the 2-10x range which was its design intent. Essentially the ZCO was designed to be an alternative for guys using 1-10 LPVO's who are not quite happy with the performance above 6x or at distance while the March was designed as more of an MPVO/Crossover style scope with a larger objective. Sure, both could be used in a similar fashion but March design intent was making a 10x erector MPVO while ZCO stuck with a 5x erector MPVO and smaller objective. I am very curious to see how the new ZCO 2-10x30 performs and expect it to do very well especially with a properly designed MPVO reticle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CSTactical, BoldCorrections, PappyM3 and 2 others
#240
Glassaholic said:
Do you mean ZCO at 10x and March at 10x? I see these as two very different scopes designed for different purposes and expect the ZCO to do extremely well optically within the 2-10x range which was its design intent. Essentially the ZCO was designed to be an alternative for guys using 1-10 LPVO's who are not quite happy with the performance above 6x or at distance while the March was designed as more of an MPVO/Crossover style scope with a larger objective. Sure, both could be used in a similar fashion but March design intent was making a 10x erector MPVO while ZCO stuck with a 5x erector MPVO and smaller objective. I am very curious to see how the new ZCO 2-10x30 performs and expect it to do very well especially with a properly designed MPVO reticle.
Click to expand...
Well put.
 
#241
Glassaholic said:
Do you mean ZCO at 10x and March at 10x? I see these as two very different scopes designed for different purposes and expect the ZCO to do extremely well optically within the 2-10x range which was its design intent. Essentially the ZCO was designed to be an alternative for guys using 1-10 LPVO's who are not quite happy with the performance above 6x or at distance while the March was designed as more of an MPVO/Crossover style scope with a larger objective. Sure, both could be used in a similar fashion but March design intent was making a 10x erector MPVO while ZCO stuck with a 5x erector MPVO and smaller objective. I am very curious to see how the new ZCO 2-10x30 performs and expect it to do very well especially with a properly designed MPVO reticle.
Click to expand...

I just want to see which one performs the best in the 5-10 range. I don't care much for the 1x.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa
#242
PappyM3 said:
God forbid people criticize a ZCO product or point out any of its compromises.

It’s not about being butt hurt. It’s about Rio Precision’s ad hominem attacks against people who have a different opinion. It couldn’t be that other people have valid opinions different from his. No, it’s just that people with different opinions are mere internet dwellers who don’t have real world experience.

Do you think my experiences that back my opinion on the weight are limited to myself and infantry peers? You don’t think that it could be a corollary for backcountry hunters? Or people who have firearms for possible contingencies that could mirror infantry CONOPS?

If it fits all your needs that’s great. My point with Rio is that people are different. They have different CONOPS and considerations. It doesn’t make them internet-spec_sheet warriors.
Click to expand...
People making definitive assertions about an optic that hasn’t even been released into the wild yet based upon a spec sheet or an illustration of a reticle is the definition of an internet spec sheet warrior…and this thread has had a lot of that. Maybe, people should wait until it’s actually released before declaring it a piece of shit that misses the mark…whatever that is for them. Rio is just point that out. Maybe you don’t like the way he’s doing it, but that’s all it is.

That said, there’s lots of us on here who have both real world operational experience and are back country hunters. While your point of “weights of shit adds up” is valid, I think the vast majority will accept the weight “compromise” of the ZCO for what is almost certain to be a markedly improved optical and functional experience. It’s literally only 4.5-5.5oz different than other options listed. When talking about one of your most critical pieces of gear, that’s essentially irrelevant and makes no practical difference whatsoever. However, if the weight is a perceived legitimate issue for you or anyone else, but this 2-10 otherwise addresses your other issues with 1-10s/2-10s then cut 2-4” off your barrels. Cheap. Easy. Weight problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa and charnicus
#244
chase723 said:
People making definitive assertions about an optic that hasn’t even been released into the wild yet based upon a spec sheet or an illustration of a reticle is the definition of an internet spec sheet warrior…and this thread has had a lot of that. Maybe, people should wait until it’s actually released before declaring it a piece of shit that misses the mark…whatever that is for them. Rio is just point that out. Maybe you don’t like the way he’s doing it, but that’s all it is.

That said, there’s lots of us on here who have both real world operational experience and are back country hunters. While your point of “weights of shit adds up” is valid, I think the vast majority will accept the weight “compromise” of the ZCO for what is almost certain to be a markedly improved optical and functional experience. It’s literally only 4.5-5.5oz different than other options listed. When talking about one of your most critical pieces of gear, that’s essentially irrelevant and makes no practical difference whatsoever. However, if the weight is a perceived legitimate issue for you or anyone else, but this 2-10 otherwise addresses your other issues with 1-10s/2-10s then cut 2-4” off your barrels. Cheap. Easy. Weight problem solved.
Click to expand...
Weight isn’t going to change when people get it in person, so I’m not sure why that can’t be discussed definitively before handling it. It’s a much more valid definitive statement than “No one is pieing corners and then running out to make 500yd engagements right after in real life. Just on forums.”

But on the weight, it’s not only 4.5-5.5oz more than the other options I listed. The 36mm body also comes with less mount selection, and heavier mounts. The Mk5hd 2-10 is probably only ~5oz lighter for the whole package, but the rest are more of a difference.
 
#245
PappyM3 said:
Weight isn’t going to change when people get it in person, so I’m not sure why that can’t be discussed definitively before handling it. It’s a much more valid definitive statement than “No one is pieing corners and then running out to make 500yd engagements right after in real life. Just on forums.”

But on the weight, it’s not only 4.5-5.5oz more than the other options I listed. The 36mm body also comes with less mount selection, and heavier mounts. The Mk5hd 2-10 is probably only ~5oz lighter for the whole package, but the rest are more of a difference.
Click to expand...
When the Mark 5hd 2-10 was launched there were a lot of complaints about the weight, stupid 35mm tube and only 30mm objective lens.

There wasn't anyone in those threads arguing people are stupid for making these complaints.

Just imagine in NF release a 2-10x30, it could be SFP with a MOAR reticle and Mil turrets, and 30oz.
Then the NF fanbois will be out defending their turf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoweit and PappyM3
#246
I will agree with @Rio Precision Gunworks that an LPVO is NOT the optic of choice if you are focused solely on CQB. I'm shocked the "I can run my LPVO just as fast as a red dot crowd" didn't show up in droves telling us how they get a proper cheek weld 100% of the time and about how scope shadow and eye relief are mythical creatures. You know, JuSt tRaIn mOrE dUdE. Perhaps I need a commercial account too.

Anyways, if you read between the many lines, and threads here, and there is plenty of them, it's clear this ZCO was built/made for either a specific entity or specific bid. I believe the feature set was decided by a specific end user and well, weight wasn't on the bid spec so ZCO gave them what they wanted.

Is the optic too heavy? For what most people wanted this optic for, yes. But it's not too heavy for many use cases such as on top of a SCAR or similar weapon system. I've said before, I am considering it for a PWS UXR which I think would be right at home in a 1.54 for clip-on use.

The one argument that annoys me is that ounces don't matter. B.S. They absolutely matter. Some (most) people don't want an additional 2 lbs of weight hanging off their weapons system if they can help it. Weight is an issue, balance is an issue and it has nothing to do with "jUsT liFt wEiGhTs." As I've said before, there are men out their bigger, stronger and tougher than you that still desire a lightweight optic.

I remember Elon Musk being asked by an interviewer "Why did you make the Cyber truck bulletproof?" After his long trademark pause in thought Elon says "Do you want your truck to be bulletproof?"

The fact is, we can get an the features we want in an MPVO without it having to be an anvil. This is not an either/or category of optics. If the feature sets and glass outweigh your issues with the weight you will buy it, if they don't, you won't. Pretty simple.

We should not continue to debate whether or not everyone else's use case should be the same as our own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FatBoy, Rio Precision Gunworks, PappyM3 and 3 others
#248
Burdy said:
I will agree with @Rio Precision Gunworks that an LPVO is NOT the optic of choice if you are focused solely on CQB. I'm shocked the "I can run my LPVO just as fast as a red dot crowd" didn't show up in droves telling us how they get a proper cheek weld 100% of the time and about how scope shadow and eye relief are mythical creatures. You know, JuSt tRaIn mOrE dUdE. Perhaps I need a commercial account too.

Anyways, if you read between the many lines, and threads here, and there is plenty of them, it's clear this ZCO was built/made for either a specific entity or specific bid. I believe the feature set was decided by a specific end user and well, weight wasn't on the bid spec so ZCO gave them what they wanted.

Is the optic too heavy? For what most people wanted this optic for, yes. But it's not too heavy for many use cases such as on top of a SCAR or similar weapon system. I've said before, I am considering it for a PWS UXR which I think would be right at home in a 1.54 for clip-on use.

The one argument that annoys me is that ounces don't matter. B.S. They absolutely matter. Some (most) people don't want an additional 2 lbs of weight hanging off their weapons system if they can help it. Weight is an issue, balance is an issue and it has nothing to do with "jUsT liFt wEiGhTs." As I've said before, there are men out their bigger, stronger and tougher than you that still desire a lightweight optic.

I remember Elon Musk being asked by an interviewer "Why did you make the Cyber truck bulletproof?" After his long trademark pause in thought Elon says "Do you want your truck to be bulletproof?"

The fact is, we can get an the features we want in an MPVO without it having to be an anvil. This is not an either/or category of optics. If the feature sets and glass outweigh your issues with the weight you will buy it, if they don't, you won't. Pretty simple.

We should not continue to debate whether or not everyone else's use case should be the same as our own.
Click to expand...

I probably should have been more clear. I don't disagree that weight can matter. I was mainly in disagreement on how many people want to impart their bias into what the ZCO optic is or should be. And using fairly ridiculous arguments that only exist on the internet.

And was pointing out that most people aren't actually adding up their weight. They just see a single specific optic with a weight and get bent out of shape that it isn't what they think it should be. But many of those same people are also running setups that when you add up the parts, are around the same weight.

And then of course, there is the one optic to rule them all myth that also only exists online. People are continually looking for a unicorn optic that is a true 1x but also a 6x or 10x LPVO.....that is bombproof, weights 15oz, and works just as well for cqb as patrol use.

When anyone running these professionally understands that doesn't exist and you should be picking your optic/s according to the most you will be using them for that particular day/week/year/lifetime. And that you'll almost never be in a situation where you require top performance in multiple roles.

I.E. you're not going to be in a position where you're mainly in a cqb role, and your magnifier isn't going to be fine for longer engagements. Or you're not going to be a position where you are mainly in a patrol situation or longer engagements where the LPVO shines.....and it's not good enough to work the times when you have to do a bit of cqb here and there.

If you're somehow in a position where you need to top performing optic in both cqb or patrol scenarios.....you either did some piss poor planning or you've landed in a lot more trouble than a mythical perfect optic will ever get you out of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxwell and Bakwa
#249
Rio Precision Gunworks said:
If you're somehow in a position where you need to top performing optic in both cqb or patrol scenarios.....you either did some piss poor planning or you've landed in a lot more trouble than a mythical perfect optic will ever get you out of.
Click to expand...

Sometimes your dickhead commander doesn't give you a choice despite what was briefed :mad:

But most of what you said I am inclined to agree with.


Anyways...8 weeks ago ZCO commented on IG the 2-10 was about 10 weeks out. So in scope development math, Labor Day gonna be 🔥
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rio Precision Gunworks and Bakwa
#250
Rio Precision Gunworks said:
I probably should have been more clear. I don't disagree that weight can matter. I was mainly in disagreement on how many people want to impart their bias into what the ZCO optic is or should be. And using fairly ridiculous arguments that only exist on the internet.

And was pointing out that most people aren't actually adding up their weight. They just see a single specific optic with a weight and get bent out of shape that it isn't what they think it should be. But many of those same people are also running setups that when you add up the parts, are around the same weight.

And then of course, there is the one optic to rule them all myth that also only exists online. People are continually looking for a unicorn optic that is a true 1x but also a 6x or 10x LPVO.....that is bombproof, weights 15oz, and works just as well for cqb as patrol use.

When anyone running these professionally understands that doesn't exist and you should be picking your optic/s according to the most you will be using them for that particular day/week/year/lifetime. And that you'll almost never be in a situation where you require top performance in multiple roles.

I.E. you're not going to be in a position where you're mainly in a cqb role, and your magnifier isn't going to be fine for longer engagements. Or you're not going to be a position where you are mainly in a patrol situation or longer engagements where the LPVO shines.....and it's not good enough to work the times when you have to do a bit of cqb here and there.

If you're somehow in a position where you need to top performing optic in both cqb or patrol scenarios.....you either did some piss poor planning or you've landed in a lot more trouble than a mythical perfect optic will ever get you out of.
Click to expand...
That was much better articulated.
I respect your logic, just not your complete conclusion.

Let me give you a quick anecdote to counter your example.
I was on a team where one of our guys was overwatch alone [weird situation], we lost comms, then he had to make entry into a house with just a MK12 [all alone] in a pinch. Stuff goes wrong. Murphy's law and all that.
I'm sure he would have preferred a LPVO then instead of that stupid Leupold that we all hated.
I say all that [and agree] that there isn't any one optic to rule them all, but some can stretch into other roles more fluidly than others.

I agree with you that guys on the internet nitpick far too hard. I bet most of them couldn't discern the differences they demand in a blind test.
But none the less, there are undoubtedly features which would make a given optic more useful across a broader spectrum of roles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftie, PappyM3, Makinchips208 and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

netranger6
AI AX and ZCO
Replies
14
Views
732
M8541Reaper
M8541Reaper
U
ZCO customer service
Replies
24
Views
669
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
brand692
SOLD WTT NIB FDE ZCo 5-27 MPCT2X for TT
Replies
1
Views
248
brand692
brand692
D
Tangent theta ....ZCO.....Night Force ATACR.....
Replies
76
Views
4K
Secant
Secant
SD Carpenter
Optics Vortex gen 3 1-10 w/ bobro qd mount
Replies
1
Views
207
SD Carpenter
SD Carpenter
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts