Zero Compromise or Tanget. I have looked at all the review still don't know. Is the tanget $1000 better is the big question. I could care less about turret feel or weight or anything other than glass clarity and spotting misses and hits at other end. this is whats important to me.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Zero Compromise or Tanget. I have looked at all the review still don't know.
- Thread starter Aviatorfreak
- Start date
It’s your money, only you can answer if it is 1K better.
I don’t know nor have read about a single person with a ZCO that has said they couldn’t spot hits/misses and went TT to solve for that. And vice versa.
Pick one and maintain good recoil management. You should see what you seek.
I don’t know nor have read about a single person with a ZCO that has said they couldn’t spot hits/misses and went TT to solve for that. And vice versa.
Pick one and maintain good recoil management. You should see what you seek.
Two of the best scopes in its class, you can't go wrong with either one
I'd be happy to disciss the pros and cons of them over the phone at 916-670-1103 
I have a zco 420 and a tangent theta 5-25. worth the difference in money is impossible for anyone to answer as everyones financial situation is different. I like both better than my 3-20 pmii. I honestly cant decide between the two. I will say the fov of the zco is amazing. and everything about the zco is great. but than again tangent is everything everyone says it is. tough choice. itd be a tough choice even if they were the same price.
Last edited:
Wonder which one has more forgiving eyebox, if any difference. I am currently shooting razor 2's and i like the forgiving eyebox on them at 15-18 zoom.
I have a ZCO and have used a TT in a class before the ZCO was available.
I am glad I bought a ZCO.
Call @CSTactical and discuss it. You will be better informed to make your decision
I am glad I bought a ZCO.
Call @CSTactical and discuss it. You will be better informed to make your decision
Of course we would love to have your business, but if you have specific questions about ZCO, I'd be more than happy to answer. Just let me know. Thanks for your interest in ZCO!
Please find a way for right side parallax and left side windage before dropping the new reticle!!!
No I dont want to run it upside down.
Seriously the new reticle is what I ve been waiting for but the other 2 items would help you crush it.
No I dont want to run it upside down.
Seriously the new reticle is what I ve been waiting for but the other 2 items would help you crush it.
I had both the 3-15 and 5-25 TT’s and tried ZCO.
Sold the TT’s and currently run a 420 and a 527 ZCO.
Owned over 20 NF; 10 SB; 20 Swaro; etc etc.
Dthomas3523’s report above is excellent and I think quite objective.
All I will say is my 3rd scope purchase this year will be another ZCO.
Sold the TT’s and currently run a 420 and a 527 ZCO.
Owned over 20 NF; 10 SB; 20 Swaro; etc etc.
Dthomas3523’s report above is excellent and I think quite objective.
All I will say is my 3rd scope purchase this year will be another ZCO.
I went with the zco for the fov and eye box. Haven’t shot behind a TT, but the glass on the zco is really, really good. I think that 36mm tube just gives them more room. It might also have more elevation and windage range but I can’t remember for sure.
Own both of the higher mag variants of TT and ZCO. Let your wallet and reticle preference make the decision.
Outside of those variables, I find them to be a toss up.
ETA: I do really appreciate ZCOs presence here on the forums, from active customer service presence and also educational posts.
Outside of those variables, I find them to be a toss up.
ETA: I do really appreciate ZCOs presence here on the forums, from active customer service presence and also educational posts.
First choice when choosing between optics of similar quality is the reticle. If one has the reticle you prefer, that’s the choice. Do not talk yourself out of it. If there are reticles in both you like then move onto:
Eyebox and Picture
Turrets: prefer locking or tool less
The glass is going to be very close with some giving a slight edge to TT and others saying it’s the same. Close enough it doesn’t matter.
Both have a similar forgiving parallax.
Reticle options and turrets are the defining differences.
Eyebox and Picture
Turrets: prefer locking or tool less
The glass is going to be very close with some giving a slight edge to TT and others saying it’s the same. Close enough it doesn’t matter.
Both have a similar forgiving parallax.
Reticle options and turrets are the defining differences.
I am curious about the illumination. I have a SB 5-20 and would really like it to be brighter. I actually sent in for service thinking something was wrong. With my eyes I can't see the reticle in the shadows under 7x mag.
Rasyad
Rasyad
Almost no illumination is going to be completely daylight bright unless you have a pretty dark background or low light.
If you’re using as low as 4-7x, you’re likely in a point an shoot situation anyway.
If you’re using as low as 4-7x, you’re likely in a point an shoot situation anyway.
I own both and at 1 point owned 2 TT’s sold 1 TT. Both are ridiculously good. I like the magnification Ring on the ZCO way better. I agree with the gentleman above get both.
Both are spectacular. I am particularly impressed with the eyebox of the ZCO. TT glass is ever so slightly better. I favor the erg's of the ZCO. As Alf says directly above, the TT tool-less turrets are the cat's ass.
As an owner of both in 5-27/5-25, Everything considered, my next purchase would be a ZCO 5-27 MPCT 3.
As an owner of both in 5-27/5-25, Everything considered, my next purchase would be a ZCO 5-27 MPCT 3.
So is the eye box on the tanget tighter than the zero. What it sounds like. That why i haven’t ever liked the nightforce. The eye box on 15 zoom is so much tighter than my razor 2 it isn’t even close
Rifle setup and anatomy probably play a part for me in a way, but I've noticed in the small percentages of the time where I am running both scopes to the highest magnifications, the TT's eyebox is more forgiving for me than the ZCO. But the other 95% of the time, I am super comfortable between either of them in the lower ranges.
Dont know if you decided yet but if you did I hope you’re happy with your choice. I purchased a zco 527 today and I was in the same situation as you, I had the funds to go either TT or Zco, shit I even contemplated nightforce as a bit more affordable solution but at the end it came down to reticle options (I chose MPTC2). Every article I read or any video I saw basically said the same thing between TT and Zco, its just too close to call or TT is a bit better in certain areas but not all, confronted with that I decided to save a grand and leave it up to reticle choice and quite frankly I liked the look and ergonomics of the Zco better, I’ll invest the 1,000 or so dollars I saved in other gun related shit.
I have them both 5-27 and 5-25. Actually had the 3-15 TT as well but sold it. I like the reticle (MPCT3) in the ZCO a bit better. If I needed another scope I'd probably buy another ZCO and not feel deprived.
I'm a "reticle" guy and get caught up, probably too caught up, with the "look" of the reticle. I prefer Christmas tree reticles that are not prominent, meaning they don't distract me if I'm not using them. I had the ZCO with MPCT2 and just got a TT with Gen 3XR, so far I am really liking the Gen 3XR but need more range time to make final determination.
Stopped at EO over the weekend and compared a bunch of high end scopes. Closest i found to my Hens was the TT. I have not played w a ZCO yet but fell in love w the TT 5-25 h59. This will replace the SB 5-25 sitting on my 338 AI.
My next scope will be a ZCO.
Tangent has the best turrets of any scope hands down, but the power ring and parallax are pretty stiff.
Can't comment on which has better glass as I haven't compared side by side, but both have incredible glass. FOV is great for both.
I'm going with ZCO because I like the reticle more, its cheaper, and the power ring and parallax are the perfect tension.
Tangent has the best turrets of any scope hands down, but the power ring and parallax are pretty stiff.
Can't comment on which has better glass as I haven't compared side by side, but both have incredible glass. FOV is great for both.
I'm going with ZCO because I like the reticle more, its cheaper, and the power ring and parallax are the perfect tension.
For me it was reticle choice, turret function, glass, and the fact that I already have a few 34mm SPUHR mounts in the parts bin. I went with Tangent Theta. I added an Aadland Engineering throw lever and it's been great so far. The included ARD was a nice bonus.
I am considering a ZCO and have followed most of these posts carefully. I have a question: there seems to be a lot of love for the 527, but very little mention of the 420. The length and the weight of the 420 seems to be an advantage. Why do people seem to lean toward the 527 instead?
My preference is for the Ultra Short 4-20 (I like shorter lighter scopes), the image at 20x is phenomenal; however, most here are competition shooters and for competition you do not need 4x and while atmospherics limit what you can use at the top end, many prefer the traditional 5-25 range. If you do not need 4x at the bottom then the 5-27 is going to be more beneficial and the longer scope design may lend to slightly better characteristics (eyebox, DOF, etc. but again, the 4-20 gives up very little).
Last edited:
The good news is on recent scopes (I bought mine new last fall, manufactured sometime between July and September) Tangent Theta has definitely fixed the stiff mag/parallax rings. The bad news is that it took seemingly years of feedback for them to implement that change on all new scopes (though I heard they would adjust it for you if you shipped it back to them on the old scopes).
Between the two my decision wasn't at all based on the glass clarity, because the difference between the two is honestly so small that it may as well not exist at all. The only place there's really any noticeable difference in resolution/clarity is if you're using max magnification at 800+ yards when mirage starts to come into play. You won't notice it at normal PRS/hunting magnifications (18x and below) and you won't notice it for the majority of your shooting inside 1,000 yards even at max power. The primary difference between the two is just the color and contrast based on the lens coatings for each. ZCO has a bit more contrast and that makes colors feel a bit more "vibrant", so to speak, while the TT feels overall slightly brighter with a bit less contrast. Not washed out on the TT, not oversaturated on the ZCO, just slightly different balances of color, brightness, and contrast for each and I think that's really the only thing that makes mirage more visible on the ZCO compared to the TT at high magnification.
I bought the TT not because of glass though, I bought it just because of features. I like the Tremor3 reticle, and I really love the tool-less rezero functionality on the TT. I swap my scope between a lot of different guns, which means I adjust the zero a fair amount. I also like to adjust my zero each time I go out shooting, if it's a tenth off here or there. Being able to do that without having to dig out my tools is a big deal to me, but it doesn't mean much at all to other shooters who won't move the scope around as much as I do. I also personally don't care much for locking turrets, but other people love them.
You won't buy either scope because of their optical performance compared to one another. They're both head and shoulders above every other manufacturer, and they're near enough equals that only the snobbiest of glass snobs would truly prefer one over the other (and even then, it would depend on the balance of color, brightness, and contrast they prefer rather than one being objectively better than the other). Buy the one with the features you like - for me the T3 reticle and tool-less rezero were worth the additional cost. For many other people the MPCT reticles and locking turrets are considered upgrades over what the TT offers.
Get the features you want and you'll be happy no matter which scope you purchase. For me personally if ZCO ever offers a scope with a T3 (or similar) reticle and tool-less rezero I'll sell my TT immediately to buy one and spend the price difference on other gear.
Between the two my decision wasn't at all based on the glass clarity, because the difference between the two is honestly so small that it may as well not exist at all. The only place there's really any noticeable difference in resolution/clarity is if you're using max magnification at 800+ yards when mirage starts to come into play. You won't notice it at normal PRS/hunting magnifications (18x and below) and you won't notice it for the majority of your shooting inside 1,000 yards even at max power. The primary difference between the two is just the color and contrast based on the lens coatings for each. ZCO has a bit more contrast and that makes colors feel a bit more "vibrant", so to speak, while the TT feels overall slightly brighter with a bit less contrast. Not washed out on the TT, not oversaturated on the ZCO, just slightly different balances of color, brightness, and contrast for each and I think that's really the only thing that makes mirage more visible on the ZCO compared to the TT at high magnification.
I bought the TT not because of glass though, I bought it just because of features. I like the Tremor3 reticle, and I really love the tool-less rezero functionality on the TT. I swap my scope between a lot of different guns, which means I adjust the zero a fair amount. I also like to adjust my zero each time I go out shooting, if it's a tenth off here or there. Being able to do that without having to dig out my tools is a big deal to me, but it doesn't mean much at all to other shooters who won't move the scope around as much as I do. I also personally don't care much for locking turrets, but other people love them.
You won't buy either scope because of their optical performance compared to one another. They're both head and shoulders above every other manufacturer, and they're near enough equals that only the snobbiest of glass snobs would truly prefer one over the other (and even then, it would depend on the balance of color, brightness, and contrast they prefer rather than one being objectively better than the other). Buy the one with the features you like - for me the T3 reticle and tool-less rezero were worth the additional cost. For many other people the MPCT reticles and locking turrets are considered upgrades over what the TT offers.
Get the features you want and you'll be happy no matter which scope you purchase. For me personally if ZCO ever offers a scope with a T3 (or similar) reticle and tool-less rezero I'll sell my TT immediately to buy one and spend the price difference on other gear.
Based on mine and others' experience with the T3 reticle, I think you may grow to hate it in a few years.
I used to think it was great, but once I started understanding ballistics and wind holds more, I found myself getting extremely frustrated that I couldn't spot my impacts. It felt like I was constantly trying to look through a screen door, and I was always adding 2 tenths of elevation when I was using the wind dots. As I gain more experience I get the feeling I'll be going the route of less is more.
Your mileage may vary however.
I used to think it was great, but once I started understanding ballistics and wind holds more, I found myself getting extremely frustrated that I couldn't spot my impacts. It felt like I was constantly trying to look through a screen door, and I was always adding 2 tenths of elevation when I was using the wind dots. As I gain more experience I get the feeling I'll be going the route of less is more.
Your mileage may vary however.
I don't mind spotting hits in the reticle, at least for me it hasn't been noticeably worse than using other tree-style reticles. I also tend to shoot in areas where spotting misses is easier because of very dusty soils, however. The 2 tenths of elevation is something that caught me out at the start, but after realizing it's there I haven't had issues. So far I've been using it for about a year and a half in two different scopes and am still a happy camper, at least so far.
Regardless of reticle I plan to continuing using holdovers for multiple target distances when on the clock, it just gives me more time to build stable positions and focus on fundamentals which leads to better shooting because I don't feel rushed. I understand a lot more about ballistics and wind holds than I did 4 years ago, but the one consistent experience I've had is that simplifying things has always been better for me. I have a habit of overcomplicating and overthinking things, which leads to analysis paralysis or poor results because you have a dozen different techniques to shoot from different positions. Only having 1 number to think about for wind, the speed in mph, and only using 1 bag for all my positional shooting has greatly improved the issues I previously saw when overthinking everything.
I won't say that will work for everyone, because the reticle is quite cluttered and will obstruct your view particularly if you live somewhere damp/humid where misses are particularly difficult to see. It also won't even provide any tangible benefit for people who are comfortable and confident in making mil-value wind corrections on the fly across multiple distances. I am fairly good with numbers, did well throughout an engineering degree and in the working world so far, but without pencil/paper to help organize my thoughts things quickly turn into a trainwreck. Even worse if I'm doing the mental math while also trying to concentrate on building a position and cleanly breaking a shot. I'll freely admit it's a crutch of sorts to make up for a personal shortcoming, but it's something that I haven't been able to fix even with decades of work so it's more effective (for the forseeable future) for me to use the crutch and direct my focus on the shooting fundamentals instead.
Regardless of reticle I plan to continuing using holdovers for multiple target distances when on the clock, it just gives me more time to build stable positions and focus on fundamentals which leads to better shooting because I don't feel rushed. I understand a lot more about ballistics and wind holds than I did 4 years ago, but the one consistent experience I've had is that simplifying things has always been better for me. I have a habit of overcomplicating and overthinking things, which leads to analysis paralysis or poor results because you have a dozen different techniques to shoot from different positions. Only having 1 number to think about for wind, the speed in mph, and only using 1 bag for all my positional shooting has greatly improved the issues I previously saw when overthinking everything.
I won't say that will work for everyone, because the reticle is quite cluttered and will obstruct your view particularly if you live somewhere damp/humid where misses are particularly difficult to see. It also won't even provide any tangible benefit for people who are comfortable and confident in making mil-value wind corrections on the fly across multiple distances. I am fairly good with numbers, did well throughout an engineering degree and in the working world so far, but without pencil/paper to help organize my thoughts things quickly turn into a trainwreck. Even worse if I'm doing the mental math while also trying to concentrate on building a position and cleanly breaking a shot. I'll freely admit it's a crutch of sorts to make up for a personal shortcoming, but it's something that I haven't been able to fix even with decades of work so it's more effective (for the forseeable future) for me to use the crutch and direct my focus on the shooting fundamentals instead.
Any plans to build the ZComp in 2FP? I know you’re about to release the MOA turrets and reticle but waiting on 2FP. Thanks
