@CSTactical if they are shipping mpct3 in Austria does that mean you’re getting close to getting your supply?
Rifle Scopes Zero Compromise Optic MPCT3 reticle
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
D
Deleted member 121493
Guest
trace is probably no problem. Ordering mpct2. I dislike imperials in the mpct3 as I always use metrics. did like the circles tho
well can’t have everything, and I don’t think any of the zco reticles can be wrong!
Last edited by a moderator:
trace is probably no problem. Ordering mpct2. I dislike imperials in the mpct3 as I always use metrics. did like the circles tho
If you’re willing to use an mpct2, and you like the reticle on the mpct3, then not liking the imperial measurement of the ranging funnel isn’t a great reason not to get it.
The rest of the reticle works exactly like mpct2
Also, I’m betting there will be some mpct3 news this week ???
D
Deleted member 121493
Guest
In the Wild... Through the scope pics shortly...
Very Excited to run it through its' paces this afternoon.
Middle is 15x
Rt is 20x
66% ipsc
Very Excited to run it through its' paces this afternoon.
Middle is 15x
Rt is 20x
66% ipsc
Attachments
Last edited:
My wallet is starting to cry like a kid does before the actual spanking begins
Yes, definitely will be putting the MPCT3 in our ZC420.
Going to be a while until these are available though. The reticle looks the same through the scope, but due to differences in the optical design, we can't just put a reticle from the ZC527 into the 4-20. I don't want to guess at a timeframe, but we are actively working on it with our reticle manufacturer already.
Thanks for your interest in this reticle for the ZC420! We'll keep the members here updated as we get closer to shipping these out.
Going to be a while until these are available though. The reticle looks the same through the scope, but due to differences in the optical design, we can't just put a reticle from the ZC527 into the 4-20. I don't want to guess at a timeframe, but we are actively working on it with our reticle manufacturer already.
Thanks for your interest in this reticle for the ZC420! We'll keep the members here updated as we get closer to shipping these out.
Do you think you could post a picture at 5x? I'm trying to get an idea of how usable the reticle is at lower mag for use on an AR10. Thanks.
Any plans for a MPCT 4 that gets rid of the funnel? Seems like something I'd never use, but I like the idea of open space above the crosshairs.
Ditto, I wish more MFGs would get it out of their practice that just because there's open realestate, they need to use it.
It’s not about using real estate. It’s about keeping minimum SKU.
Tossing a ranging device there will turn off a few people, others won’t care, and even more doors open with mil/le and field match shooters.
Otherwise, you’d have to maintain 3-4 reticle options vs 1.
The small amount you lose with the ranging device is less than it would cost otherwise.
Do you ever use the ranging ability? I'm trying to justify it but I can't imagine where I'd ever use it. LRF or measuring with mils makes more sense to me.
You don’t need to justify it. You’ll hardly notice it if you’re not looking for it.
I get that, but I notice tree reticles and have been moving away from them. Have you ranged at any matches or tested the funnel in real world, is it accurate? If you were a Police officer/mil, would you trust the funnel over LRF? Have you made use of the funnel at all Dthomas? I think you have to know the target size so it's no different than miling the target.
Last edited:
Guess we'll agree to disagree. The more expensive the scope, the more im picky about the reticle being what I want (Vortex not putting the EBR7-C in the AMG is a perfect example). 90% of their shooters have little to no use for the funnel, and the 12 oclock post appears to be a case of using real estate because its there. Its so far away from the aiming point, it loses the purpose of drawing the eye.
There is nothing to disagree about. Lol.
I know the people behind it and why they put it there. You’re speculating and have zero information in which to draw a conclusion.
And it’s purposely away from the center to leave room for watching trace and other such things.
Im not speculating about anything - the majority of shooters of that scope have zero use for the funnel. Its my opinion most would be better served by having that area clean for spotting.
You know... They make a mpct1 and 2 with.........no funnel
I do, and they have a full 12 o'clock post. If the 3 had a clear top half it may be my perfect reticle.
You are absolutely speculating that they “used empty space just because” and other such statements you have made. You have no idea what, who, or why went into the reticle design.
They sell every single one they make with backordered piling up. And there is plenty of room for spotting with the funnel there. Have you even looked at one in person, or are you just complaining like most of your posts?
There were several discussions within our design team as well as with a few industry insiders that got an early look at the reticle before it's release. Some of that discussion was on the tree design / layout, but most of it was about the ranging funnel. Questions like "does it provide an advantage?" "Does it detract from the image?" "Are the benefits outweighing any negatives?" And things like that. We fully understood it would be a little controversial to some people, while others would see the advantages and make use of them.
We also fully understand that a pure PRS style shooter has no use for it and would rather have that space open for viewing trace. We had that discussion with a few people at SHOT and even revisited the entire idea again before giving final approval to our reticle manufacturer. In the end, we elected to keep the funnel, and here is why.
We intentionally placed it as far above the center as practical. The bottom of the funnel is at 3 mils up from center, so there is an easy reference for hold unders if needed and yet it is still within the view at 27x. As @Dthomas3523 pointed out, your brain doesn't even process it being there when actually shooting. So we believe that those that won't use the funnel, it's not really a factor due to the placement.
We also have several military shooters using our scopes. Is the funnel going to be as accurate as an LRF? Heck no. It's not meant to be. It is meant for a quick and fast method to get a range that is "close enough" so send a round and be pretty close to on target. Mil ranging with the reticle is no different, you still have to know the size of the target. With the funnel, you eliminate the need to pull out the MDM or refer to your mil ranging chart if the target happens to be either 6", 9", 12", or 18" widths. Those widths have both a military application and also fit IPSC targets. A 100 percent IPSC is 18" wide for example. So, there is a high level of functionality to the funnel and applies to a field match type competition where we still encounter mil ranging stages. We know PRS gives you the ranges, got it. Our customers aren't only PRS guys though, the customer base is much wider than that. So there is a big justification for keeping the funnel. I have used the funnel as intended, and it works as it should. Are the impacts on target perfectly centered each time? Not always, but a hit is a hit and that's the goal. The funnel works, and it's fast with a touch of practice, just like milling a target needs some practice.
Don't be discouraged though......we are here and listening to the conversation. We have current customers absolutely loving the MPCT3 regardless of the funnel. Many don't use it, but it doesn't bother them because it is out of the way. Other potential customers wish it wasn't there, and we understand that as well, we knew that would be the case. We listen to the shooters here on SH, and take into account these discussions on future products.
I hope this helped clarify some things from our business decisions on keeping the funnel in the reticle. Before making up your mind that the funnel is a detractor, we ask you to keep an open mind, and give the reticle a shot if you have the opportunity.
Thank you.
We also fully understand that a pure PRS style shooter has no use for it and would rather have that space open for viewing trace. We had that discussion with a few people at SHOT and even revisited the entire idea again before giving final approval to our reticle manufacturer. In the end, we elected to keep the funnel, and here is why.
We intentionally placed it as far above the center as practical. The bottom of the funnel is at 3 mils up from center, so there is an easy reference for hold unders if needed and yet it is still within the view at 27x. As @Dthomas3523 pointed out, your brain doesn't even process it being there when actually shooting. So we believe that those that won't use the funnel, it's not really a factor due to the placement.
We also have several military shooters using our scopes. Is the funnel going to be as accurate as an LRF? Heck no. It's not meant to be. It is meant for a quick and fast method to get a range that is "close enough" so send a round and be pretty close to on target. Mil ranging with the reticle is no different, you still have to know the size of the target. With the funnel, you eliminate the need to pull out the MDM or refer to your mil ranging chart if the target happens to be either 6", 9", 12", or 18" widths. Those widths have both a military application and also fit IPSC targets. A 100 percent IPSC is 18" wide for example. So, there is a high level of functionality to the funnel and applies to a field match type competition where we still encounter mil ranging stages. We know PRS gives you the ranges, got it. Our customers aren't only PRS guys though, the customer base is much wider than that. So there is a big justification for keeping the funnel. I have used the funnel as intended, and it works as it should. Are the impacts on target perfectly centered each time? Not always, but a hit is a hit and that's the goal. The funnel works, and it's fast with a touch of practice, just like milling a target needs some practice.
Don't be discouraged though......we are here and listening to the conversation. We have current customers absolutely loving the MPCT3 regardless of the funnel. Many don't use it, but it doesn't bother them because it is out of the way. Other potential customers wish it wasn't there, and we understand that as well, we knew that would be the case. We listen to the shooters here on SH, and take into account these discussions on future products.
I hope this helped clarify some things from our business decisions on keeping the funnel in the reticle. Before making up your mind that the funnel is a detractor, we ask you to keep an open mind, and give the reticle a shot if you have the opportunity.
Thank you.
Is there a planned time for availability of the 420 with the MPCT3 reticle? I'm just latching onto this as an alternative to a K318i I had been considering to go on top of an LMT MRS 6.5 LR.
Thanks.
Thanks.
A dealer told me a few weeks ago they expected to receive the MPCT3 420s mid September.
ZC420 reticle specs have been verified and just waiting on our first production run to arrive from our manufacturer. We are eagerly anticipating them soon so we can get them built and headed out to dealers.
Thanks for the info. Is there a recommended “go to” base for a flat top if I’m going to shoot out to 1,000 and dial for elevation?
Lots of great options out there. Look into Spuhr, Tier One, and MasterPiece Arms for one piece mounting options.
@gebhardt02 you made the right choice to keep it. I’ve taken unknown distance classes and learned how to range with a reticle. Not claiming to be any kind of an expert but I won’t buy a scope that doesn’t have a reticle that I can‘t range with in a pinch. What a bitch when your LRF batteries die when you need it, I think a good rifleman needs to have some basics skills in ranging and the funnel makes that really fast and easy. Good job I like it.
Thread Revival. Looking into a ZCO 527. First time I saw the MPCT3 I didn’t know what to think. It looked very odd. After seeing it multiple times it has really grown on me to the point that I prefer it now. Looking forward to snagging one of these! And I agree that you should always have a fail-safe for ranging targets. Milling is a diminishing skill.
While I don't have any info on the MPCT3 reticle. I can say the ZCO 527 is well worth the money and you can't go wrong with any of them. Debating staying with the same mPCt2 but in a 4x20 for my MK12 build.
Definitely will do!!Give us a call at 916-670-1103, we'd be happy to help you in your decision
I have it on both 5x27 and 4x20, traded up from the M2, love the 3.
I really like it. I like the open dots because they give me the utility of the tree but it is very transparent, and I like the funnel at the top for rapid ranging of relatively close targets. My eye is drawn to the open circles just fine and I like the grid pattern and dots versus hashes everywhere. Only thing that I wish was a little different would be that the line thickness around the center of the reticle within the first mil was only 1/2 as thick and that it didn’t have the thick center stadia at the top. It definitely works fine as is but I think this would increase visibility around the center of the reticle, increase the perception of the field of view, and improve rapid engagement of targets at low power.
Got my ZCO mounted up on a new AT LE. I am lovin the MPCT3! Easy to spot corrections because the open circles are quick to pick up. Just FYI, looking at photos of the MPCT3, my eyes were drawn to the open circles distracting from the center dot. However real world use I did not have a problem focusing on center dot. The reticle appears much less cluttered 
Awesome work ZCO 
Awesome work ZCO
Last edited:
Similar threads
