Rifle Scopes ZCO ZC420 v Kahles K318i v Schmidt Ultra Shorts v Minox ZP5

Another tease......now its being talked about in the same breath as a TT. Although the only baseline i have is a S&B 3-20 US I'm very interested to hear about this March. I have always been torn on which ZCO to get, i love the new reticle but can never decide on which model to get, the 4-20 or the 5-27. I love the field of view on my S&B and if the only thing i had to give up was a reticle, this March sure dose check a lot of boxes.
 
Another tease......now its being talked about in the same breath as a TT. Although the only baseline i have is a S&B 3-20 US I'm very interested to hear about this March. I have always been torn on which ZCO to get, i love the new reticle but can never decide on which model to get, the 4-20 or the 5-27. I love the field of view on my S&B and if the only thing i had to give up was a reticle, this March sure dose check a lot of boxes.
Something to keep in mind, the March 4.5-28 does not "out perform" the TT or ZCO with regard to overall optical performance, if you want the very best in glass these two pretty much reign supreme (though I'd also throw the Minox ZP5 into the mix as well); however, as an overall package the March offers "so much more" with regard to FOV, magnification range, size and weight. So while it may be mentioned "in the same breath as TT" doesn't mean it is at the same level in every area. I'm just excited that preliminary testing shows incredible promise from this new March scope, more than any March FFP before it that is for sure.
 
My apologies if I missed this, but what is the $ on that March? Thanks
These scopes have an MSRP of $3590 for illuminated and $3290 for non-illuminated reticles. They can be found cheaper if you contact the dealer, best prices I've seen are from Long Range Supply, but Eurooptic also carries them and sometimes has them in stock, otherwise it's 4-6 weeks as March custom builds to order.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dendro
LOW LIGHT EVALUATION

@jwknutson17 and I had the chance to get out last week and do a quick review of these scopes in fading light. I have good news and I have bad news.

First the good news, all these scopes delivered like alpha scopes in low light.

The bad news, it has been a very wet summer in Colorado and as such the mosquitoes are on the rampage and we were fresh meat for their voracious appetite. As such, we were unable to conduct the full breadth of the evaluation which I usually like to do with a high and low contrast chart at 12x on each scope as the light fades from sunset to 30 minutes beyond.

View attachment 7124758


We had the Minox ZP5 3-15x50 and the Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20x50
View attachment 7124759


And of course we also had the Kahles K318i 3.5-18x50 and the ZCO ZC420 4-20x50
View attachment 7124760


CLARITY
Clarity can mean different things to different people, so let me define it here as the scopes' ability to produce an image that is detailed, a scope with good clarity is going to show detail throughout the sight picture and represent accurately the objects therein. Micro contrast is definitely going to play a role here especially with edge definition. In low light it's important for a scope to allow the shooters eye to differentiate between a branch or the tine of an antler. As mentioned above, the mosquitoes were crazy and swarming around us like flies on a dung heap, jwk brought a jacket but I was in short sleeves and they were relentless if we slowed to look through a scope. As such we could not keep steady long enough to do these scopes justice and we decided to just evaluate the best we could. At the end of the evening I made the comment it would have been fun to have had a video so you could all see are amazing dance moves as we tried to dodge the little bloodsuckers. Even though we could not stay still long enough for a thorough evaluation both jwk and I came away with the impression that all these scopes performed incredibly in low light. If there was one scope that struggled ever so slightly, both jwk and I agreed that the Schmidt Ultra Short showed the least amount of clarity within the image, this was seen in the lichen on the rocks behind the test target, the details in the lichen appeared sharper in the Minox, Kahles and ZCO than they did through the Schmidt which also aligns with my experience with two previous Ultra Shorts. Does this mean you should skip on the Ultra Short because it's a bad scope? Certainly not! We're talking the best of the best and to be at the bottom of the best (in one category) means you're still better than the rest, I would not pass up on the Schmidt Ultra Short if it meets all your other requirements for your type of shooting, you will be very pleased with this scope.

ILLUMINATION
We also conducted a quick illumination test and the scope with the brightest (by a considerable amount) illumination was the Kahles, cranked to full power the brightness in the fading late was almost too bright to look at, followed by the ZCO. I would be interested to see how the ZCO would do on it's own in bright sunlight (I should note that we only tested the red illumination and did not test the green illumination to see if that "appeared" any brighter to our eyes). Both the MR2 reticle in the ZP5 3-15 and the MSR reticle in the US 3-20 only have center crosshairs that light up with illumination, while the Schmidt did very well it seemed the ZP5 was a little brighter; would either of these scopes be daylight bright - highly doubtful, but very usable illumination when the light gets low and only having the center cross light up helps with identifying dead center for close up shots.

CONCLUSION
While I wish we didn't have to battle nature and could have spent more time conducting more thorough HC/LC testing, jwk and I both came away with the impression that all these scopes performed exceedingly well in low light.

On a side note, I've been looking for a new set of binoculars and rangefinders and had purchased a pair of Maven B.2's through Maven's demo program, I had the 11x45 and the 9x45 to compare to some Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42's and I'll post an "initial impressions" in another thread in the "Observation Devices" forum, but a sneak peak is that we were both very surprised with the Maven's IQ.
Curious to see how the new ATACR 4-20x50 F1 ranks in this lineup. 😎
 
Curious to see how the new ATACR 4-20x50 F1 ranks in this lineup. 😎
So am I, but finding one has proven to be difficult to obtain in short order. I have to pay for these scopes out of my pocket and because of the 4-20's weight and FOV limitations it would not be a scope I keep and I don't want to lose my shirt just to try it out.
If someone has an ATACR 4-20x50 in Colorado Springs area and would like to head out for a day of shooting (after 05/17) so I could get some time behind send me a PM, especially as I'm wrapping up my review of the March 4.5-28x52. If someone also has a ZCO 4-20 in the area, would love to see all these side by side. Yes, I did own a ZCO 4-20 and loved it but I am very finicky about reticles and am not a fan of the current MPCT series and was hoping they'd come out with something closer to the Gen 3XR and FML-TR1 with larger center dot and dots in the tree instead of solid lines (purely personal preference) but alas they have not so far (still hoping).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TacticalPlinker
Same here.
Been waiting on an ATACR 4-20x50 since the week they were announced.
Looks like it's time to consider other options
Yep, I was on the LE wait list for the 4-20x50 ATACR, quoted 8 months, and by the time I got to @6 months, I had saved enough for the ZCO 4-20 and cancelled the NF. I'm used to my 5-27 ergos, so it was an easy choice.
 
The 4-20x50 makes no sense. Its weighs as much as the 5-25 and is less than 2 inches shorter.
4-20 FOV is 26% greater (23.6ft/100 yards vs 18.7 for the 5-25). Parallax adjustment for the 4-20 is 11 yards vs 45 for the 5-25. Plus it's a bit shorter, so it would fit better on my LMT MWS. My range only goes to 700 yards, and I don't really shoot above 20x mag, so for me the 4-20 is better fit. But I think it was designed around being used on semi autos not bolt guns.
 
The 4-20x50 makes no sense. Its weighs as much as the 5-25 and is less than 2 inches shorter.
The ATACR 4-20x50 has a number of features that make it very attractive;
Without actually using one I'm assuming tracking and turret feel will be on point and
it will be as tough as the 7-35.
It's illuminated, a bit rare at the pricing point.
A critical one - parallax down to 11 so it can be used to dry fire in a suburban home.
- As soon as you specify under 50 and especially under 25 for parallax the scope options drop dramatically.
Lots of elevation so good to swap between centrefires and the 22LR (38Mil Elev I think)
MIL XT if that or similar is what you're used to and want to train with (my 7-35 is Mil XT)

and significantly
Here Down Under the ATACR 4-20x50 is priced at just over $4,000 while the ATACR 7-35 is nearly $6000
so you could get basically a little brother ATACR with the same features for much less.
If you could actually get a 4-20x50................

A. I don't have the coin for a second 7-35
B. If I did spend that amount I'd buy a Zero Comp every day of the week
 
While I’m sure the 4-20 is a great optic I’m not sure where it fits. It hardly lighter than the 5-25 and the form factor is nearly identical. Had it been an ultrashort i think they would’ve killed it. Think 5x erector in the 4-16x50 body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huskydriver
While I’m sure the 4-20 is a great optic I’m not sure where it fits. It hardly lighter than the 5-25 and the form factor is nearly identical. Had it been an ultrashort i think they would’ve killed it. Think 5x erector in the 4-16x50 body.

I agree I feel like the 420 was a huge miss for them. Too bad...I wish NF would come into the 22st century and update those garbage turrets and rotating occular so I could consider them a viable beta tier scope option...hell I hear arkens turrets are crisper 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount
4-20 FOV is 26% greater (23.6ft/100 yards vs 18.7 for the 5-25). Parallax adjustment for the 4-20 is 11 yards vs 45 for the 5-25. Plus it's a bit shorter, so it would fit better on my LMT MWS. My range only goes to 700 yards, and I don't really shoot above 20x mag, so for me the 4-20 is better fit. But I think it was designed around being used on semi autos not bolt guns.
Comparing a 4-20 to a 5-25 is not really a fair comparison, they are two different scope designs. If we are comparing to ZCO, then the ZCO has almost 16% greater FOV than ATACR 4-20 (23.6ft/100 yards vs 28.0ft/100 yards for the ZCO) when both are at 4x but picks up FOV throughout the mag range to best the ZCO at 20x by .1 feet or 1.2 inches wider FOV. Other than the 36mm tube the ZCO should be the better scope on almost every spec except close focus parallax distance. If FOV is not an issue, then I'm sure the ATACR is going to be surprisingly good.
 
Comparing a 4-20 to a 5-25 is not really a fair comparison, they are two different scope designs. If we are comparing to ZCO, then the ZCO has almost 16% greater FOV than ATACR 4-20 (23.6ft/100 yards vs 28.0ft/100 yards for the ZCO) when both are at 4x but picks up FOV throughout the mag range to best the ZCO at 20x by .1 feet or 1.2 inches wider FOV. Other than the 36mm tube the ZCO should be the better scope on almost every spec except close focus parallax distance. If FOV is not an issue, then I'm sure the ATACR is going to be surprisingly good.
At full price the NF is about $750 cheaper which is significant($3000 vs $3750). I don't know if there are any special discounts for ZCOs other than sponsorships but there are more than a few for NF plus quite a few that do discounted demo optics. So it wouldn't be hard to find a NF 4-20 for over 1000 less than a ZCO 420. For me and my purpose for the optic(Mid-Long range comp optic) the NF was a better value for similar features.
 
At full price the NF is about $750 cheaper which is significant($3000 vs $3750). I don't know if there are any special discounts for ZCOs other than sponsorships but there are more than a few for NF plus quite a few that do discounted demo optics. So it wouldn't be hard to find a NF 4-20 for over 1000 less than a ZCO 420. For me and my purpose for the optic(Mid-Long range comp optic) the NF was a better value for similar features.
Yeah, $1K+ seems to the be the difference. A new 4-20 sold for $2350 a few weeks ago on ebay, and there is one listed on the PX now for $2500ish. That's not a small difference compared to ZCO, but I guess it's a difference most people ignore...
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
At full price the NF is about $750 cheaper which is significant($3000 vs $3750). I don't know if there are any special discounts for ZCOs
Doubtful, but call around and ask as dealers can't advertise below MAP
other than sponsorships
Is ZCO sponsoring any shooters?
but there are more than a few for NF plus quite a few that do discounted demo optics. So it wouldn't be hard to find a NF 4-20 for over 1000 less than a ZCO 420. For me and my purpose for the optic(Mid-Long range comp optic) the NF was a better value for similar features.
I thought these were still hard to find in the wild, but if you can find one for under $2700ish and FOV isn't an issue then the NF is undoubtedly going to serve you well, no argument there, I don't know for sure as I've not had one to test, maybe someday, but I'm still waiting for that unicorn alpha LT (light tactical) 4-20x50 to come out from someone that weighs less than 28oz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorbeast
At full price the NF is about $750 cheaper which is significant($3000 vs $3750). I don't know if there are any special discounts for ZCOs other than sponsorships but there are more than a few for NF plus quite a few that do discounted demo optics. So it wouldn't be hard to find a NF 4-20 for over 1000 less than a ZCO 420. For me and my purpose for the optic(Mid-Long range comp optic) the NF was a better value for similar features.
No discounts on ZCO, at best some dealers will save you money in tax (depending on state) and/or will hook you up with accessories and package deals i.e. sunshade, rings, scope caps
 
Yeah, $1K+ seems to the be the difference. A new 4-20 sold for $2350 a few weeks ago on ebay, and there is one listed on the PX now for $2500ish. That's not a small difference compared to ZCO, but I guess it's a difference most people ignore...
Gotta pay tax now on ebay :mad: putting that right on the mark for the one in the PX. How often do these show up in the PX?

You can find ZCO 4-20's for around $3400ish with caps (they ought to come with Tenebraex caps from factory like TT, NF and Schmidt 🤷‍♂️) on the PX, so yes, $800-$900 more is a chunk of change, especially if you factor in you have to buy a new mount or rings to accommodate a 36mm tube vs. maybe already having a set of 34mm.
 
Gotta pay tax now on ebay :mad: putting that right on the mark for the one in the PX. How often do these show up in the PX?

You can find ZCO 4-20's for around $3400ish with caps (they ought to come with Tenebraex caps from factory like TT, NF and Schmidt 🤷‍♂️) on the PX, so yes, $800-$900 more is a chunk of change, especially if you factor in you have to buy a new mount or rings to accommodate a 36mm tube vs. maybe already having a set of 34mm.
It is kinda annoying that you have to buy that stuff separately, specially the sunshade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
Doubtful, but call around and ask as dealers can't advertise below MAP

Is ZCO sponsoring any shooters?

I thought these were still hard to find in the wild, but if you can find one for under $2700ish and FOV isn't an issue then the NF is undoubtedly going to serve you well, no argument there, I don't know for sure as I've not had one to test, maybe someday, but I'm still waiting for that unicorn alpha LT (light tactical) 4-20x50 to come out from someone that weighs less than 28oz.
Screenshot_20220328-202045_Chrome.jpg


In stock other places too. As far as ZCO sponsoring shooters I'm assuming they are but idk any personally so maybe not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
Comparing a 4-20 to a 5-25 is not really a fair comparison, they are two different scope designs. If we are comparing to ZCO, then the ZCO has almost 16% greater FOV than ATACR 4-20 (23.6ft/100 yards vs 28.0ft/100 yards for the ZCO) when both are at 4x but picks up FOV throughout the mag range to best the ZCO at 20x by .1 feet or 1.2 inches wider FOV. Other than the 36mm tube the ZCO should be the better scope on almost every spec except close focus parallax distance. If FOV is not an issue, then I'm sure the ATACR is going to be surprisingly good.

We are in agreement... I know that the 4-20 and 5-25 isn't a fair comparison regarding FOV, that's why I didn't originally compare the two the scopes. I think that the two scopes offer different enough features to fulfill different roles. DeathBeforeDismount implied that the 4-20 was too close in features/specs to the 5-25 to justify it's existence. He said, "The 4-20x50 makes no sense. Its weighs as much as the 5-25 and is less than 2 inches shorter."

I simply pointed out a few ways in which the 4-20 model differs enough from the 5-25 model to justify it's usage compared to the 5-25. Depending on how the scope is used, his statement is likely true (comp rifle). However, for my intended use (16" 308 LMT MWS) the 4-20 is a better fit.

I'm sure the ZCO is a better scope, it offers a wider FOV on the low end, negligible FOV difference on the top end, most certainly better glass... but it's quite a bit more expensive, and unless the ATACR is totally insufficient for shooting, I personally can't justify the additional cost. However, DeathBeforeDismount's comment was comparing the 4-20 ATACR vs 5-25 ATACR, not the ATACR vs ZCO (even though I would love to read your comparison - if that ever happens).
 
Nightforce could cost $2,000 less and I still wouldn't waste my money on their shitty designs, subpar glass, garbage reticles or Hello I am from 1998 rotating occular.

ZCO by a country Mile.
Really??? You don't think an 4-20 ATACR would be a good buy at $600-700 (+tax)? You're like a reverse arken shill. There must be a backstory worthy of hearing.

I am a bit surprised, NF seemed to be Frank's go to (until ZCO took over) and he's used just about everything and I'm sure he's seen many samples of each make/model... is he really that wrong about these scopes? Or are you just shitposting?
 
Really??? You don't think an 4-20 ATACR would be a good buy at $600-700 (+tax)? You're like a reverse arken shill. There must be a backstory worthy of hearing.

I am a bit surprised, NF seemed to be Frank's go to (until ZCO took over) and he's used just about everything and I'm sure he's seen many samples of each make/model... is he really that wrong about these scopes? Or are you just shitposting?
If you go on his profile and look through a few pages of his posts they are 99% shitposting.... Maybe he's had a legit bad experience. I'll never buy another Kahles after having 3 with issues but some people still love them.
 
DeathBeforeDismount implied ...
Well that was your first mistake :LOL:, I try to take almost everything DBD says with a grain of salt, most of the time he's just trying to stir the pot but every now and then I read something of his that I agree with, but don't want to fuel his ego so try not to say anything ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount
Really??? You don't think an 4-20 ATACR would be a good buy at $600-700 (+tax)? You're like a reverse arken shill. There must be a backstory worthy of hearing.

I am a bit surprised, NF seemed to be Frank's go to (until ZCO took over) and he's used just about everything and I'm sure he's seen many samples of each make/model... is he really that wrong about these scopes? Or are you just shitposting?
Look. I ran a ATACR 5-25 and a Gen 2 razor for a few months side by side. Know whats crazy?

Vortex had better glass, better reticle, better turrets and non fucking retarded eyepiece and was about $1500 cheaper.

ZCO blows a Razor out of the water, the NF is not even comparable IMO. Its a $15-1700 scope with a $1300 marketing budget attached to it. Probably built in the same Japanese plant that vortex uses.

Everyone likes different shit. You have to get behind and run different stuff to see what you like. I thought the TT was going to make the ZCO look poor. Actually it was the opposite. Shot each of them in back to back matches one weekend and was already trying to sell the TT before leaving the range.

Just sold a Tangent to buy another ZCO. Will probally buy one of the 8-40 when they come out and there is no military discount or certs or pro forms to knock price down like everything else. And its still worth every penny. There is no equal in optics right now to the ZCO IMO. If you like one or want the best, just buy a Zcomp and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
Look. I ran a ATACR 5-25 and a Gen 2 razor for a few months side by side. Know whats crazy?

Vortex had better glass, better reticle, better turrets and non fucking retarded eyepiece and was about $1500 cheaper.

ZCO blows a Razor out of the water, the NF is not even comparable IMO. Its a $15-1700 scope with a $1300 marketing budget attached to it. Probably built in the same Japanese plant that vortex uses.

Everyone likes different shit. You have to get behind and run different stuff to see what you like. I thought the TT was going to make the ZCO look poor. Actually it was the opposite. Shot each of them in back to back matches one weekend and was already trying to sell the TT before leaving the range.

Just sold a Tangent to buy another ZCO. Will probally buy one of the 8-40 when they come out and there is no military discount or certs or pro forms to knock price down like everything else. And its still worth every penny. There is no equal in optics right now to the ZCO IMO. If you like one or want the best, just buy a Zcomp and be done with it.
I agree with you when you say you gotta get behind stuff to see what you like. I own a ZCO527 and till now its the best optic I have ever used and now every time I get behind other stuff its hard to be unbiased. I should be getting a TT in the next week or two to replace a ZCO420 that I don't plan on using ( reasons not associated with quality) I could of gotten another 527 but as stated "gotta get behind stuff" so I want to see what the TT is about and I want to experience it for myself. I have never owned a NF so can't comment on that.
 
Look. I ran a ATACR 5-25 and a Gen 2 razor for a few months side by side. Know whats crazy?

Vortex had better glass, better reticle, better turrets and non fucking retarded eyepiece and was about $1500 cheaper.

ZCO blows a Razor out of the water, the NF is not even comparable IMO. Its a $15-1700 scope with a $1300 marketing budget attached to it. Probably built in the same Japanese plant that vortex uses.

Everyone likes different shit. You have to get behind and run different stuff to see what you like. I thought the TT was going to make the ZCO look poor. Actually it was the opposite. Shot each of them in back to back matches one weekend and was already trying to sell the TT before leaving the range.

Just sold a Tangent to buy another ZCO. Will probally buy one of the 8-40 when they come out and there is no military discount or certs or pro forms to knock price down like everything else. And its still worth every penny. There is no equal in optics right now to the ZCO IMO. If you like one or want the best, just buy a Zcomp and be done with it.
Thanks, i appreciate this feedback, it's a bit more useful!
 
Look. I ran a ATACR 5-25 and a Gen 2 razor for a few months side by side. Know whats crazy?

Vortex had better glass, better reticle, better turrets and non fucking retarded eyepiece and was about $1500 cheaper.

ZCO blows a Razor out of the water, the NF is not even comparable IMO. Its a $15-1700 scope with a $1300 marketing budget attached to it. Probably built in the same Japanese plant that vortex uses.

Everyone likes different shit. You have to get behind and run different stuff to see what you like. I thought the TT was going to make the ZCO look poor. Actually it was the opposite. Shot each of them in back to back matches one weekend and was already trying to sell the TT before leaving the range.

Just sold a Tangent to buy another ZCO. Will probally buy one of the 8-40 when they come out and there is no military discount or certs or pro forms to knock price down like everything else. And its still worth every penny. There is no equal in optics right now to the ZCO IMO. If you like one or want the best, just buy a Zcomp and be done with it.
Wait, so you're judging NF's entire line and them as a company based off of one 5-25 you had for couple months? Also, the 7-35 is the only NF made in Japan and funny enough is known to have the best glass of their line up although my new 4-16 is damn close. I don't think anyone is saying NF is the tippy top glass(although comparable to S&B in some cases and better that others in the same or higher price range) to say the Vortex gen 2 is comparable in IQ is laughable. Even if you had a poor example NF that doesn't mean they all share the same IQ and characteristics.

I'm no NF fanboy... I go wherever the best reliability, feature, and price ratio is for my needs but usually NF fits my needs.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you when you say you gotta get behind stuff to see what you like. I own a ZCO527 and till now its the best optic I have ever used and now every time I get behind other stuff its hard to be unbiased. I should be getting a TT in the next week or two to replace a ZCO420 that I don't plan on using ( reasons not associated with quality) I could of gotten another 527 but as stated "gotta get behind stuff" so I want to see what the TT is about and I want to experience it for myself. I have never owned a NF so can't comment on that.
You will love the turrets. The toolest zero is by far the quickest and easiest out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Islas82
Doubtful, but call around and ask as dealers can't advertise below MAP

Is ZCO sponsoring any shooters?

I thought these were still hard to find in the wild, but if you can find one for under $2700ish and FOV isn't an issue then the NF is undoubtedly going to serve you well, no argument there, I don't know for sure as I've not had one to test, maybe someday, but I'm still waiting for that unicorn alpha LT (light tactical) 4-20x50 to come out from someone that weighs less than 28oz.

A. Correct
B. There is less than a handful that get discounted products as "sponsorship" and come out of pocket for the remaining. Unlike some companies that may give you over $20k in products, pay match fees, pay for travel, pay hotel and even a salary for the .01% of top shooters.
C. Fingers crossed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
Wait, so you're judging NF's entire line and them as a company based off of one 5-25 you had for couple months? Also, the 7-35 is the only NF made in Japan and funny enough is known to have the best glass of their line up although my new 4-16 is damn close. I don't think anyone is saying NF is the tippy top glass(although comparable to S&B in some cases and better that others in the same or higher price range) to say the Vortex gen 2 is comparable in IQ is laughable. Even if you had a poor example NF that doesn't mean they all share the same IQ and characteristics.

I'm no NF fanboy... I go wherever the best reliability, feature, and price ratio is for my needs but usually NF fits my needs.
If the 7-35 is the only NF made in japan, where are the rest made?

Yea i have never seen or used any other NF optics in the last 20 years. LOL I havent owned about a half dozen NXS over the years either. Never played with them in stores or on the firing line or at classes...........

The 7-35 does have better glass than the rest of the line, but its still far behind ZCO in not only glass but other areas. They are within a few hundred dollars of each other which is laughable.

The last 2 S&B PM2 I shot side by side with my ZCO, it was like night and day. I have owned PM2's in the past and at the time thought they were Alpha, and they were. Side by side with the ZCO shooting into heavy timber and finding targets on the side of a mountain, the S&B was significantly darker and harder to find targets. Switch to the ZCO and it was like taking a pair of sunglasses off.

Like I said, I ran the Gen 2 and a 5-25 ATACR F1 side by side for months. The Gen 2 looked better. Better color and brightness. Resolution was a wash.

NF has the best marketing in the industry. They are good hard use optics, but their features and glass are way behind their price level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper