Those turrets should be a hit with the over 50 boomer crowd as they shouldn't have a hard time reading those numbers without a magnifier in front lol
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's always one......Wow, video is so bad... shows what they think of the market, or worse... what the market actually is... people spending >3K on scopes who don't know what FFP is and love juicy platitudes. Superghey - for what is probably a great product.
I mightI see this as the Leica offering. I am saying it now, ain't no way someone is going to spend 3500 on this over a ZCO.
I'm sure that's what it isThat looks exactly like a Meopta Meotac
Back then?Hi,
What is pretty funny is that pretty much nobody said a whisper about the BEAST turrets way back when it came out.......you know...because of the NF worshipping back then.
Indeed.... Proof that marketing wins, even if your product comes out of LOW like a bunch of other stuff. Good to seeBack then?
Idk the failure rates seem pretty low. I’d say a solid product marketed well has something to do with it.Proof that marketing wins, even if your product comes out of LOW like a bunch of other stuff.
I have to correct you there. I got in many a internet scuffle here over how stupid the beast turret was.Hi,
What is pretty funny is that pretty much nobody said a whisper about the BEAST turrets way back when it came out.......you know...because of the NF worshipping back then.
And as soon as Zeiss would have put a locking elevation turret someone would have complained about having to take the extra 1.763 seconds to unlock it.
Sincerely,
Theis
Just curious, what decision criteria did you use to switch from a ZCO? What is compelling enough to favor the Zeiss scope at this early stage of their product release?
That looks exactly like a Meopta Meotac
That's an interesting observation and it would explain why Meopta has not really been pushing their MeoTac product line.
However, the 3-12x50 MeoTac is a 4x erector. These are 5x erector systems, so the scope design is clearly different. There is some visual resemblance and, honestly, if Zeiss had Meopta build this for them, it would not be a bad thing at all. Meopta is capable of making exceptionally nice stuff and at this price a Meopta built product would be absolutely world class.
That having been said, the product page for these rather explicitly says "designed, engineered and manufactured in Germany", if memory serves me right. There is some leeway in terms of terminology, but it sounds pretty specific.
I will reach out to Zeiss and see if they have a 3-18x50 I can borrow for the new 50mm High End comparison I am working on.
ILya
people waited so long for zeiss FFP scope because nobody liked hensoldt reticles, but were all fascinated of their famous quality, best glass and 'get it behind the scope'.
zeiss is producing hensoldt riflescopes, so you cant say that this is early stage of their FFP product
alot of peoply tried to fling 308 win waaaay to far back in the dayWhy the fuck does it seem everyone uses non 10 mil turrets?! Especially those built in countries that use the metric system.
Because there is a LOT more to designing a turret than the one aspect of click spacing for easier visibility. Let me explain a bit from our perspective. We (ZCO) have 35 Mils of internal travel. Our turret wasn't designed to move upward as you crank on more and more elevation. So to get 35 Mils of elevation travel, if we had 10 mil turrets, we would then need 3.5 rotations of the turret. Our chosen design uses an elevating rotation indicator pin on top of the turret, so then we'd need to engineer in even more room for a taller pin to extend up three different heights. This would lead to a taller elevation turret, which we didn't want to have. Also, is the engraving. If we (ZCO) used 10 mil turrets, we'd have over three rows of numbers engraved on the turret itself, which would then necessitate smaller numbering to fit them all on there.Looks interesting and I would love to try one, but gotta sell something first. MY constructive criticism: Why the fuck does it seem everyone uses non 10 mil turrets?! Especially those built in countries that use the metric system. You would think they would understand the intuitiveness that a base 10 system provides. Plus it makes the turrets super simple to read. Rant off
hadn't thought about it that way, but makes a helluva lot of senseBecause there is a LOT more to designing a turret than the one aspect of click spacing for easier visibility. Let me explain a bit from our perspective. We (ZCO) have 35 Mils of internal travel. Our turret wasn't designed to move upward as you crank on more and more elevation. So to get 35 Mils of elevation travel, if we had 10 mil turrets, we would then need 3.5 rotations of the turret. Our chosen design uses an elevating rotation indicator pin on top of the turret, so then we'd need to engineer in even more room for a taller pin to extend up three different heights. This would lead to a taller elevation turret, which we didn't want to have. Also, is the engraving. If we (ZCO) used 10 mil turrets, we'd have over three rows of numbers engraved on the turret itself, which would then necessitate smaller numbering to fit them all on there.
So instead of the one aspect of wider click spacing for easier viewing, we made our turret as wide as we could, spaced the clicks out as much as we could, used a 15 mil/turn, and ended up with two rows of numbers around the perimeter (which we could then make pretty large for easier viewing) and we put the final 5 mils of elevation up top. We kept our turret very low profile as a result and it doesn't move upward as you add elevation.
Those are more of the design aspects that we need to take into account from an engineering side of things. Hopefully that makes sense why some manufacturers, and specifically here at ZCO (I know this is a Zeiss thread but might help to answer "why" they didn't also), haven't used 10 mil / turn turrets. There's a lot going on to think about for the overall design.
i've never been a fan of any of ZCO's reticle designs, though i could live with their #2 if i had to. I'll wait till milehigh gets these in stock , then make a decision, it has delayed my decision for a ZCO for now though. Spending this much , i don't need to get in a hurryJust curious, what decision criteria did you use to switch from a ZCO? What is compelling enough to favor the Zeiss scope at this early stage of their product release? I too am getting ready to pull the trigger on a couple of scopes. Ive decided on one ZCO for sure, but the selection of the second optic is still up in the air. I’d really like to get my eyes on one for an hour.
Researching the ZCO has taken me down some amazing rabbit holes! If you spend any time obsessing about optics, you really need to spend a couple of hours (minimum) on the Schott Glass AG website. It’s amazing to understand the different attributes of optical glass, and the choices that manufactures make for their product lines. BTW…the tier-1 glass typically comes from the upper right quadrant. I’m curious if Zeiss (and others) uses Schott glass for “all“ of the elements in the scope?
View attachment 7722389
FYI, Mile high has 5-27’s in stock with MPCT2, 3, & 3x, and 4-20 with MPCT1.i've never been a fan of any of ZCO's reticle designs, though i could live with their #2 if i had to. I'll wait till milehigh gets these in stock , then make a decision, it has delayed my decision for a ZCO for now though. Spending this much , i don't need to get in a hurry
yea i've seen that, i also want to look at the Leupold 7-35 with the RP2 reticle.FYI, Mile high has 5-27’s in stock with MPCT2, 3, & 3x, and 4-20 with MPCT1.
yea i've seen that, i also want to look at the Leupold 7-35 with the RP2 reticle.
Please join the discussion and the reasoning behind your (wrong) opinioni've never been a fan of any of ZCO's reticle designs
Hensoldt was sold to Airbus quite a few years ago and then spun off as a separate company. I do not think Zeiss has much to do with Hensoldt at this stage and riflescopes is a miniscule part of what Hensoldt does.
ILya
I appreciate the behind the scenes perspective. I am shooting a ZCO right now, and the turret is one of the few things I would change. The gen 2 razor has multiple turns w/ a rev indicator, but you certainly have better glass. The need for multiple rows of numbers is moot on a 10 mil turret, a base 10 is extremely intuitive and no calculations are required like a 12+ turret. Plus if you're dialed much beyond 10 mils there isn't much need for speed, you're most likely shooting ELR and aren't rushed for time like you are under 10 mils at a PRS/NRL event. I appreciate your contribution to my favorite hobby/addiction, so please don't take this as an argumentative post. I am just throwing out my redneck opinion/feedback. Keep on keeping onBecause there is a LOT more to designing a turret than the one aspect of click spacing for easier visibility. Let me explain a bit from our perspective. We (ZCO) have 35 Mils of internal travel. Our turret wasn't designed to move upward as you crank on more and more elevation. So to get 35 Mils of elevation travel, if we had 10 mil turrets, we would then need 3.5 rotations of the turret. Our chosen design uses an elevating rotation indicator pin on top of the turret, so then we'd need to engineer in even more room for a taller pin to extend up three different heights. This would lead to a taller elevation turret, which we didn't want to have. Also, is the engraving. If we (ZCO) used 10 mil turrets, we'd have over three rows of numbers engraved on the turret itself, which would then necessitate smaller numbering to fit them all on there.
So instead of the one aspect of wider click spacing for easier viewing, we made our turret as wide as we could, spaced the clicks out as much as we could, used a 15 mil/turn, and ended up with two rows of numbers around the perimeter (which we could then make pretty large for easier viewing) and we put the final 5 mils of elevation up top. We kept our turret very low profile as a result and it doesn't move upward as you add elevation.
Those are more of the design aspects that we need to take into account from an engineering side of things. Hopefully that makes sense why some manufacturers, and specifically here at ZCO (I know this is a Zeiss thread but might help to answer "why" they didn't also), haven't used 10 mil / turn turrets. There's a lot going on to think about for the overall design.
Yeah honestly a 10 mil turret doesn’t need extra numbers, just a second rev indicator. If you’re in the second rev and can’t figure out what 4 mils equals you’ve got bigger issues. Not to mention how rarely people even go beyond 10 mils.I appreciate the behind the scenes perspective. I am shooting a ZCO right now, and the turret is one of the few things I would change. The gen 2 razor has multiple turns w/ a rev indicator, but you certainly have better glass. The need for multiple rows of numbers is moot on a 10 mil turret, a base 10 is extremely intuitive and no calculations are required like a 12+ turret. Plus if you're dialed much beyond 10 mils there isn't much need for speed, you're most likely shooting ELR and aren't rushed for time like you are under 10 mils at a PRS/NRL event. I appreciate your contribution to my favorite hobby/addiction, so please don't take this as an argumentative post. I am just throwing out my redneck opinion/feedback. Keep on keeping on
Pity I can't lend you one sooner Ilya - I should have mine sometime early November with some luck...I talked to Zeiss. If all goes well, I should have my hands on the 3-18x50 version toward the beginning of December.
ILya
Good call. With a startup company like Zeiss, you are really rolling the dice.I also don't want to be the beta tester for something that will not hit the market for awhile. I lean toward the ZCO due to the length of time it has been out there.
Now now. No needed to get snarkey and snippy. I wasn't referring to Zeiss as something new, but so far as this new scope, yeah I'll wait for the in the field reviews here on the Hide. Been down the road of buying the latest and greatest, only to find out that it ain't so great.Good call. With a startup company like Zeiss, you are really rolling the dice.
I've been looking at the ZCO line and just starting looking at this new Zeiss with fluorite coating. One thing that kind of bothers me is the center only illumination, and that is probably because of my newbie status. I don't know if fluorite is used as a coating on ZCO, but for telescopes, it can be easily damaged with the wrong cleaning procedures.
I also don't want to be the beta tester for something that will not hit the market for awhile. I lean toward the ZCO due to the length of time it has been out there.
Zeiss with fluorite coating