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

[Glassaholic]

If I remember correctly, it combines the dynamic range of their High and Low modules into one. As I recall, it should give a little visibiity in shadow areas, but it is not hugely bright. I like the overall design of this module since there is a rotary ring that sets illumination and a separate rubberized button that turns it on and off.

ILya

March has too many options, they should do away with the low and the high and just offer the combined, that would be much easier as like you mentioned I had no idea that existed. Would love to see a newly designed 3-24x56 that fixes some of the parallax/depth/FOV issues the current version has - now that we have so many ultra short options, the one design lacking is an ultra short that offers greater than 18x magnification with a 56mm objective but also keeps the weight down some to be more appealing to hunters and those of us who prefer not to have bricks on our tactical rigs but would like a larger objective for better low light capabilities.

Edit - and having written this I realize that one of the difficulties with ultra short designs has to do with larger objectives, so that may be a limitation that optical engineers have struggled to overcome, but this would be a great shot of adrenaline for March if their engineers could figure this one out.

 

[opus56]

Great write-up, thanks for sharing it.

 

[koshkin]

March has too many options, they should do away with the low and the high and just offer the combined, that would be much easier as like you mentioned I had no idea that existed. Would love to see a newly designed 3-24x56 that fixes some of the parallax/depth/FOV issues the current version has - now that we have so many ultra short options, the one design lacking is an ultra short that offers greater than 18x magnification with a 56mm objective but also keeps the weight down some to be more appealing to hunters and those of us who prefer not to have bricks on our tactical rigs but would like a larger objective for better low light capabilities.

Edit - and having written this I realize that one of the difficulties with ultra short designs has to do with larger objectives, so that may be a limitation that optical engineers have struggled to overcome, but this would be a great shot of adrenaline for March if their engineers could figure this one out.

Now, I know that you do pay attention. You are absolutely correct. Large objective in a short scope is difficult and even when done well, can present usability problems.

Personally, I do not think we are lacking scopes with large objectives. It is quite the opposite. We are lacking scopes with moderate objectives. I would really like to see a competent manufacturer make a truly world class 1.8-15x38 scope that is short, compact, has good depth of field and good performance across the whole magnification range. The idea for this scope is to have something that is quite quick on 1.8x. When I was using Leica Magnus 1.8-12x50, I was amazed at how good it was on low power, but I really want to get that in a smaller FFP scope.

ILya

 

[Carlos0311B4]

Awesome review! Only thing that sucks now is I’m broke! ? I’ll have to settle for G2 Razors and Swfa 5-50s

 

[hk dave]

You're not giving up much with the G2 Razors. I run a bunch of awesome scopes and never feel like the G2 Razor is holding me back.

 

[Carlos0311B4]

You're not giving up much with the G2 Razors. I run a bunch of awesome scopes and never feel like the G2 Razor is holding me back.

I should of put the settle in “settle”. I love the G2. Then again the DMR I had never gave me any issues either.

 

[Glassaholic]

You're not giving up much with the G2 Razors. I run a bunch of awesome scopes and never feel like the G2 Razor is holding me back.

The Razor Gen II is an ultra short of sorts, due to its short body and high magnification, I would put it in the category of "short" but maybe not "ultra short". Like hk dave mentioned, these scopes have a proven track record of being very good scopes both optically and mechanically.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

Thank you everyone for your kind remarks, as jwknutson17 mentioned, it takes a long time to write up these evaluations/reviews and also to put together the pics. I wish I had a better system to take through the scope pics (have been on the fence with the scoped vision type device) so getting my full size DSLR with lens in the right spot is not an easy process. Hopefully the images help and not hinder because sometimes the image is slightly blurry due to user error and not due to the scope itself.

It's kind of rare that I post on these forms but I must say you did an extremely impressive write-up.

The screenshots and explanations we're incredible and easy for guy to read and absorb. You are doing a service for us all. Obviously these are not purchases to be taken lightly and because of your research I am a better informed consumer...

 

[SD Carpenter]

I definitely started to get more interested in this thread while I'm waiting for the Mauser coupon lol

Very well done, I don't know how you guys get such great pictures of the reticle's.

 

[Glassaholic]

I definitely started to get more interested in this thread while I'm waiting for the Mauser coupon lol

Very well done, I don't know how you guys get such great pictures of the reticle's.

Smoke and mirrors SD Well okay, we weren't smoking and we didn't have any mirrors, but it's a steady hand with my big Nikon D750 and I like to use my 24-120 f/4 lens with VR to keep things steady, I usually run it right around 24mm and align the ocular with the lens, there are a bunch of shots that end up being shadowed and of course I delete all those. Over the years I kind of know where the camera needs to be and it doesn't take me nearly as long as it used to. That being said, something like the skopedvision would probably work a lot better.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have updated my initial results in post #4 on page 1 to include results from our low light testing, please jump back to page 1 to read more about that adventure.

Here's some more eye candy with the ZCO's as the ZC527 came in the day we conducted our testing, very preliminary observations showed the ZC527 to be every bit as good as it's smaller sibling the ZC420.

Here we are setting up the scopes in the fading light

The siblings (sorry for the somewhat blurry image, the light was fading and I had to use a large aperture to keep ISO and shutter speed decent)

Ergo's between the two scopes are exactly the same, a nice feature when going back and forth between different rigs

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I hate all of the white text and logos on the ZCO.

 

[hk dave]

I hate all of the white text and logos on the ZCO.

Better if it was black and invisible right?

 

[Luvman]

I recently picked up a 3-20 PM2 NON US. For me it checks the most boxes. Reading your write up has peaked my interest in the ZCO. Fortunately (or unfortunately) my wallet won’t allow for a ZCO for quite some time. And I’m actually very happy with the Schmidt so far.

Have you guys compared the US 3-20 to the standard 3-20? I’m curious what the extra length does for optical performance.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Better if it was black and invisible right?

Better if they didn't slather the scope in extraneous bold white font. The other brands manage to mark their scopes without all the busyness.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Better if they didn't slather the scope in extraneous bold white font. The other brands manage to mark their scopes without all the busyness.

Lol sounds like a trivial complaint at best. So I take it you don’t like NF, kahles, s&b, minox either?

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Lol sounds like a trivial complaint at best. So I take it you don’t like NF, kahles, s&b, minox either?

It is trivial and in no way changes the function of the scope. The other scopes you mentioned don't have near the amount of white lettering though. Line them all up side by side, the ZCO white font stands out like a sore thumb compared to the others. They could all stand to tone down some of the extraneous writing but ZCO really turned it up to 11. If it doesn't bother you that's cool, I find it distracting and strongly dislike it. Would I still buy one? Sure, for the right price. Would I change it if I could? In a heartbeat.

 

[Glassaholic]

Have you guys compared the US 3-20 to the standard 3-20? I’m curious what the extra length does for optical performance.

Not a direct comparison but I owned the "regular length" PM II 3-20x50, in fact, that was the first Schmidt I ever owned and boy was I impressed, it gave me that same "Wow!" feeling when looking through it that I had from my Premier LT 3-15x50. I hated the reticle (H2CMR) and ended up selling the scope, but I sure loved the IQ (I also liked the 10 mil turrets better than the 14 and 18 mil turrets in the Ultra Short - personal preference). I actually feel like the IQ of the standard 3-20 is slightly better than what I've seen from the Ultra Short 3-20's; however, I've seen others write that they had the opposite experience so YMMV.

 

[Luvman]

Not a direct comparison but I owned the "regular length" PM II 3-20x50, in fact, that was the first Schmidt I ever owned and boy was I impressed, it gave me that same "Wow!" feeling when looking through it that I had from my Premier LT 3-15x50. I hated the reticle (H2CMR) and ended up selling the scope, but I sure loved the IQ (I also liked the 10 mil turrets better than the 14 and 18 mil turrets in the Ultra Short - personal preference). I actually feel like the IQ of the standard 3-20 is slightly better than what I've seen from the Ultra Short 3-20's; however, I've seen others write that they had the opposite experience so YMMV.

I had a premier heritage years ago and remember that wow factor. My Schmidt is second scope that I've owned that has pop to the glass. I’m hoping the Schmidt doesn’t need any trips back for service like the premier did.

I was also surprised that my scope has the metal power ring like an US.

 

[MOUNTIC]

I hate all of the white text and logos on the ZCO.

Doesn't look too excessive. I think appearance from the side / top shows more because they have the R.1 mil on the outside of the cap. The elevation turret has the 30-35 mils on the top along with the Up.1 mil marking. They do have a thicker ZCO logo then the wording of other brand names. But I think it's not excessive. Just different.

 

[Glassaholic]

How much bigger is the 527 compared to the 420? On paper it seems like nothing but in hand do you notice a difference?

The ZC420 is shorter, lighter and has a 50mm objective vs the ZC527's 56mm. Are you asking if the size makes much difference in practical use? I don't think I (or anyone) can answer that for you, the ZC527 is a "short" design for a 5-27x56, but the 4-20x50 is a different design. I would say this, if you do not need a compact package and think you'll benefit from 20+ magnification and/or 56mm objective then the ZC527 would be the scope.

 

[7WSMShooter]

Thanks for putting the time into doing this testing,taking great pics, and writing it all up. And now my wallet has someone else to hate. ?
If you do any more low light testing I’d like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Steel head]

I hate all of the white text and logos on the ZCO.

I like it.
It’s big and bold and I don’t need to put on my reading glasses to read it.

 

[Glassaholic]

I like it.
It’s big and bold and I don’t need to put on my reading glasses to read it.

I admit, the big white logo could be a bit more muted, but I do like the big thick white text on the turrets - those are appreciated for my aging eyes

 

[Cascade Hemi]

I admit, the big white logo could be a bit more muted, but I do like the big thick white text on the turrets - those are appreciated for my aging eyes

It's ok, you can admit it, all the bold white lettering on the tops of the turrets looks busy too.

Alpha glass, not alpha lettering.

 

[Glassaholic]

It's ok, you can admit it, all the bold white lettering on the tops of the turrets looks busy too.

Alpha glass, not alpha lettering.

As my dad used to tell me, “you’re entitled to your own wrong opinion “ ? no worries CH, we all have our personal preferences, I think my biggest pet peeve is the illumination tumor on Schmidt’s PM II’s

 

[Cascade Hemi]

As my dad used to tell me, “you’re entitled to your own wrong opinion “ ? no worries CH, we all have our personal preferences, I think my biggest pet peeve is the illumination tumor on Schmidt’s PM II’s

LOL, true. I wish Schmidt would update their body design. I'm glad there's choices, regardless of preference.

 

[CSTactical]

This is one thread that should be stickied IMO

 

[Phil A]

Just picked up a ZCO420 from Richard at CStactical , I want to say WOW ! This optic is amazing . Thank you Richard !

 

[Moose]

I was shooting with my ZC4x20 today and I will say it also WOW.

 

[CSTactical]

Just picked up a ZCO420 from Richard at CStactical , I want to say WOW ! This optic is amazing . Thank you Richard !

You're very welcome!

 

[bikeracer]

Great write up - thank you. Which range in Colorado is this?

 

[Glassaholic]

Great write up - thank you. Which range in Colorado is this?

Frontier Sportsman's Club just south of Colorado Springs

 

[Glassaholic]

I was shooting with my ZC4x20 today and I will say it also WOW.

I still think the ZCO ZC420 is the best ultra short out as an overall package, it definitely gives that WOW experience. I just received the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50, do not expect it to be on par with the ZCO by any stretch of the imagination, but curious how a brand new design at half the price compares. More to come in another thread.

 

[CSTactical]

I still think the ZCO ZC420 is the best ultra short out as an overall package, it definitely gives that WOW experience. I just received the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50, do not expect it to be on par with the ZCO by any stretch of the imagination, but curious how a brand new design at half the price compares. More to come in another thread.

We agree...

 

[Tier1nub]

Awsome write up. Gives me great confidence in my zco 4-20 I ordered a week ago.

 

[Moose]

Wait until you open the box and put the 4x20 in your hand you will have a big smile on your face.I know I did.

 

[Tier1nub]

I cant wait. ?

 

[mmahoney]

Outstanding write-up. Thank you. I feel I learned a lot by reading this.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Unless the camera creates some kind of artifact from the Kahles and ZCO the Minox and SB have the best images though the mag ranges from close up to distance followed by ZCO then kahles. Curious what they look like in person side by side.

Resolving fine details all are very close, minox/SB being the best but the reflective surfaces such as the sand both close and far for both ZCO and Kahles on that range wash out any or most of the terrain detail while both the SB and Minox do not show any issue. Colors for both Minox and SB appear to have less wash out as well. But again, its through a camera so I'd be curious what they look like in person.

 

[MOUNTIC]

Unless the camera creates some kind of artifact from the Kahles and ZCO the Minox and SB have the best images though the mag ranges from close up to distance followed by ZCO then kahles. Curious what they look like in person side by side.

Resolving fine details all are very close, minox/SB being the best but the reflective surfaces such as the sand both close and far for both ZCO and Kahles on that range wash out any or most of the terrain detail while both the SB and Minox do not show any issue. Colors for both Minox and SB appear to have less wash out as well. But again, its through a camera so I'd be curious what they look like in person.

The ZP5 to me was the best in the tests to my eyes. The Schmidt I thought had the best depth. But couldn't keep all the optics in the test so had to part ways with the 3-20. Wish I kept it because it was really good. Little purple CA if you tried to induce it, but nothing crazy. I still have the two 3-15 ZP5s and ended up with a TT over the ZCO for my multi caliber rig. Wjm308 had the Kahles here and while it was a good scope, it wasn't my favorite to look through out of the bunch. Turrets were nice and illumination was great though.

If I was buying new and all the optics were the same price, I would still buy the ZP5 before the others because of the price. Toss up for the ZCO and Schmidt. Think I would do the 3-20US first though. Then ZCO, Followed by the Kahles in 4th position.

Were splitting hairs and it's really personal preference and what your eyes see here. The camera induced CA that isn't there when looking through them with the naked eye. And not all the pics are probably in complete focus. Someone would really have to be there to really see the small differences. The camera really cant do them justice. Even a cloud coming over changes the picture completely.

 

[Tier1nub]

I don't see any yellow rings in my zco.

 

[MOUNTIC]

I don't see any yellow rings in my zco.

The complete edge of the sight picture all the way around. Both my 4-20 and 5-27 both did it. There was just another picture posted in a thread here that showed it pretty well also on someone else's. Maybe it's a batch thing? Few pics in the MPCT3 reticle thread also show yellow on the edges. It's not crazy but I see it more in person looking through the scope and something little just bugged me. If you dont see it and others may or may not, great. Just a personal observation.

 

[Powdermonkey4]

The complete edge of the sight picture all the way around. Both my 4-20 and 5-27 both did it. There was just another picture posted in a thread here that showed it pretty well also on someone else's. Maybe it's a batch thing? Few pics in the MPCT3 reticle thread also show yellow on the edges. It's not crazy but I see it more in person looking through the scope and something little just bugged me. If you dont see it and others may or may not, great. Just a personal observation.

I have shite eyesight to start with (-10) corrected and wear contacts so notice optics with lesser glass/design.
Have found the ZCO420 better in pretty much all ways to the Swarovski scopes I own (Z3, Z6 & Z8). But in saying that I have noticed the entire through scope image turns a yellowish cast, if the eye is placed too close to the scope.

Caveat being there is no need to have my eye that close to the scope but it did intrigue me with this change as I haven’t seen it across any other optics.
Maybe @koshkin would be able to explain this or possibly just my screwed up eyes seeing some sort of refraction issue?

 

[Flyingbullseye]

I noticed the yellow ring but it doesn't bother me. My Steiner has the same thing, I don't notice it while in use unless I'm purposely looking at the edges.

For me it was just the details I noticed in the pictures but if the replies are as jwknutson says I'll take his word for it. I have yet to look through a ZCO, I've owned the ZP5s and looked through a TT and own a 16X Steiner. Been kicking the idea around to upgrade for more mag, might still do it. Just need some first hand look through on the ZCO.

 

[Nik H]

Just saw this thread and have to say THANK YOU to @wjm308 for a fabulous amount of information

 

[MOUNTIC]

I noticed the yellow ring but it doesn't bother me. My Steiner has the same thing, I don't notice it while in use unless I'm purposely looking at the edges.

For me it was just the details I noticed in the pictures but if the replies are as jwknutson says I'll take his word for it. I have yet to look through a ZCO, I've owned the ZP5s and looked through a TT and own a 16X Steiner. Been kicking the idea around to upgrade for more mag, might still do it. Just need some first hand look through on the ZCO.

The ZCO is impressive to look through! It does have a "wide" looking picture.

If you need the 20x obviously your going between the ZCO and Schmidt. Both are good. I like the way the Schmidt turret locks more then the ZCO. The controls for illumination on the ZCOs are good. And the mag ring is on another level. Mpct2 Reticle is good also. I just dont think either of these have as good of glass as the ZP5. Personal opinion again. But really looking through them side by side is really the only way. Just like the TT is on another level for turrets and tool less zero. Have to use it to understand.

You cant go wrong really. I use these 3-15s style scopes on LR hunting guns so I prefer the thicker MR2/5 or MSR rericles. So that also played some part in why I kept ones over others.

 

[Moose]

No yellow ring in my ZC 4x20.

 

[Glassaholic]

Unless the camera creates some kind of artifact from the Kahles and ZCO the Minox and SB have the best images though the mag ranges from close up to distance followed by ZCO then kahles. Curious what they look like in person side by side.

Resolving fine details all are very close, minox/SB being the best but the reflective surfaces such as the sand both close and far for both ZCO and Kahles on that range wash out any or most of the terrain detail while both the SB and Minox do not show any issue. Colors for both Minox and SB appear to have less wash out as well. But again, its through a camera so I'd be curious what they look like in person.

Yes, the camera does play a factor in how the image looks, and the ability for me to get the camera perfectly aligned with the optical system of the scope is always a challenge which is why I make a note before all my pictures saying "DO NOT USE these images for IQ" and that goes for any image you see online for any scope because to get that image required another optical system and unless that optical system is optimized to the particular scope and perfectly aligned you are going to see aberrations in IQ. This is also why I ranked/described what I saw and also shared what jwk saw in the review.

For DOF, jwk thought the Schmidt had the edge and I thought the ZCO had the edge with regard to overall performance. I thought the Kahles also held strong against Schmidt and ZCO and even had an edge over Schmidt above 12x, but I don't think jwk saw the same thing. What I liked most about this test was that I had another set of eyes and opinion which I think is good for the community to see/hear - not everyone sees things the same way. One other thing I'll point out and warn against is beware when looking through others' scopes, we all set our diopters to our eyes (or at least we should) and because all our eyes are different we're going to set the diopter accordingly, when you look through another shooters scope you are seeing IQ based on how they have setup their diopter which could be off. I am convinced that is where we get a lot of confusing feedback - sure, you might get lucky and have someone else's scope setup that works well for your eyes, but if something looks "wrong" don't immediately think "wow, that scope sucks, I wouldn't pay $3000 for it..." or similar, but realize that this is not your scope and it has not been setup for you. The diopter can play a big part in not only parallax but also IQ and is the most important feature to setup when you first receive a scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

No yellow ring in my ZC 4x20.

I believe it is similar to CA, and some people can see it while others do not. In the below images, look at the very edge of the sight picture, where the black meets the image, in the Kahles the transition goes right from black to the image, but in the ZCO it goes from black to a thin but prominent yellow band then the image. When looking through with the naked eye this yellow band has a ghost image that extends out from the outer edge of the site picture and is more prominent when the sun was out and bright, in fact, I would say the yellow band was most notable during the brightest conditions. I am calling this the Halo effect, because that is what it looked like, a yellow halo around the outer edge of the sight picture. Nothing that is going to effect the shot, but similar to CA was something observed and somewhat annoying.