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.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes ZCO ZC420 v Kahles K318i v Schmidt Ultra Shorts v Minox ZP5
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
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.
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.
America | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com
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.Curious to see how the new ATACR 4-20x50 F1 ranks in this lineup.
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).
Just picked up a ZCO420 This morning, really excited after reading this.
Last edited:
Same here.Curious to see how the new ATACR 4-20x50 F1 ranks in this lineup.
Been waiting on an ATACR 4-20x50 since the week they were announced.
Looks like it's time to consider other options
I'm having a hard time finding user experiences with the 4-20 ATACR, which is a shame because it looks like it would be a really versatile scope. You must not be the only one waiting...
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.
2 inches can make a big difference
Not when you are already 6 inches short.
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 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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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
Gotta pay tax now on ebay
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.Gotta pay tax now on ebay
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
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:
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.
ZCO by a country Mile.
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).
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.
Well that was your first mistake
, 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
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:
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.
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:
You will love the turrets. The toolest zero is by far the quickest and easiest out there.
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
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.
Similar threads
