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.
I'm glad I've held off on my 3rd ZCO this long! The price compared to the new current norm for the 5-27 is pretty competitive to me, at least relatively speaking. A few things I am curious about:
1. Is there an increase in FOV with the 8-40 over the 5-27 at equivalent powers?
2. Will the reticle thickness be thinner than the 5-27 at equivalent power?
3. Really curious if there will be a slight optical advantage when comparing the 8-40 and 5-27 at typical powers (say 12-20) since that seems to have been noted with other scopes that have 5-25 and 7-35 or similar versions.
ETA: I just noticed the 15m parallax. Super cool! That nice treat for rimfire, especially if DOF is as awesome at typical of ZCO
wasn't the Tremor3 enough of a clusterfuck, they had to re invent it even worse? Great scope, but not a fan of that reticle
As for the 28 mils on elevation, that is just about what I would expect for scaling up the magnification given the existing ZCO designs. As mentioned in the EDC podcast, ZCO initially went with a larger 36mm tube on their 5-27 power in order to both get the 35mils elevation they desired and still have the size erector lenses they also desired for the excellent optical performance they were looking to get. In an internally adjusted scope, there isn't really a work around for this three pronged dilemma. Going with higher magnification in a design decreases your elevation, going with a smaller erector lens system increases your elevation but decreases your optical performance, going with a bigger tube gives you more room but has it's limitations as being off center on the lens system still degrades optical performance. This ZC840 appears in line with other high magnification internally adjusted scopes in elevation to me based on the manufacturers published specifications.
IN. MY. DREAMS.More information to be released soon! Here is a dedicated thread to talk about ZCO's fantastic offering
Please PM us your information to get in line or ask any other questions
Pre-Order here: https://www.cstactical.com/zco-8-40x56-zc840-riflescope
Pricing will be $4,150.00 to $4,625.00 for the Tremor 5 reticle
View attachment 7776250
Interesting that the elevation adjustment is 7 mils less on a higher power scope that is presumably designed for ELR applications which would require a larger elevation and windage adjustment capability.More information to be released soon! Here is a dedicated thread to talk about ZCO's fantastic offering
Please PM us your information to get in line or ask any other questions
Pre-Order here: https://www.cstactical.com/zco-8-40x56-zc840-riflescope
Pricing will be $4,150.00 to $4,625.00 for the Tremor 5 reticle
View attachment 7776250
Probably the same reason the mk5 3-18 has more elevation available then their 5-25 and 7-35 counterpartsInteresting that the elevation adjustment is 7 mils less on a higher power scope that is presumably designed for ELR applications which would require a larger elevation and windage adjustment capability.
Any comments on why that is?
Look at my post a few above yours.Interesting that the elevation adjustment is 7 mils less on a higher power scope that is presumably designed for ELR applications which would require a larger elevation and windage adjustment capability.
Any comments on why that is?
I will...thank youLook at my post a few above yours.
Was it really an accidentAll that information will be released in the future when ZCO has a chance, the public release was a little rushed since the ZC840 was accidentally leaked on their website.![]()
In brief, March is prioritizing elevation above everything else. This means a shorter scope with very short depth of field and less than ideal image quality at the edges of travel. ZCO seems to be prioritizing an insane depth of field at the expense of a longer scope and less travel, and therefore not needing to worry as much about image quality drop off.Not trying to start a fight, just trying to learn. If this ZCO is constrained by its size as far as amounts of adjustment are concerned, how does the March 5-42 fit so much more adjustment? They advertise (I don't have one, just reading) 40 mils of elevation, wider mag range, less weight, shorter body, and more FOV even at the higher elevation with a 34mm tube. Are the ZCO internals just that much more beefy? Where is the compromise (pun intended)?
Not trying to start a fight, just trying to learn. If this ZCO is constrained by its size as far as amounts of adjustment are concerned, how does the March 5-42 fit so much more adjustment? They advertise (I don't have one, just reading) 40 mils of elevation, wider mag range, less weight, shorter body, and more FOV even at the higher elevation with a 34mm tube. Are the ZCO internals just that much more beefy? Where is the compromise (pun intended)?
The exact same people that run atacr 7-35s are going to loose their minds over this scope. Which is pretty much any prs/long range tactical competitor, long range hunter/enthusiast. But yeah, going to be a hard one to figure out who would want such a trash scope with only 28mils of elevation. Lol.Ya, I'm not spending an hour listening to that.
It either needs to be a 2nd focal plane MOA reticle to appeal to the F-Class guys, or it needs to be an ELR 1st focal plane MIL scope with a lot of elevation. This is like some kind of hybrid that I honestly don't know who it is going to appeal to.
With a 36mm Main tube, the only reason I can see them not giving it 35+ mils of elevation is because they needed to keep the reticle optically centered because once it moves too far to either edge, the clarity and eye box go to shit.
I'd love to hear from ZCO why it only has 28mils and who this scope is designed for.
Was it really an accident. Personally I think these leaks are beneficial as they create a buzz and excitement within the industry.
ATACR 7-35 is still the king of ELR.
It has 37.5 mils. Why NF doesn’t list it as such you will have to ask them. NF will tell you the same. Both of my 7-35s have it, as well as the three my shooting buddies own.Though this is not a ZC840 vs. the 7-35 ATACR thread, it should be noted that the ATACR is listed as 29 mils of adjustment to the ZC840's 28 mils.
And no I (Richard) personally don't have your experience with ELR, but others here at our shop do.
While I agree this scope doesn’t have the elevation I’d want in elr competition, it’s not necessary to have 35 mil to be a elr competition scope.I doubt that anyone commenting on my posts about the lack of elevation have much ELR experience so here you go.
I run an ATACR 7-35 on a 0-20 EraTac base set on 10 mils for a 100 yard zero with 35 miles left in the turret. This leaves my EraTac with an additional 10 mils at my disposal. My Charlie Tarac is set to 50 mils.
0-35 mils - I use the turret
35-45 mils - turret and EraTac
45-50 mils - turret, EraTac, holdover on reticle (5 mils of holdover)
50-85 mils - Tarac and turret
85-95 mils - Tarac, turret, and EraTac
95+ mils - add holdover or get a second Tarac
Assuming you loose a couple mils to get a 100yard zero, this new scope will give somewhere between 25-29 mils on the turret making hitting all the elevation ranges even more difficult than it already is. It’s not that it can’t be managed with multiple Taracs, it’s just a pain in the ass.
In my opinion, anything claiming to be a true ELR scope should have at least 35 mils. Not to mention a 40 power scope is pretty much useless at these ranges due to mirage. I’d rather they made a 35 power scope with 40 mils of travel. It would have been far more useful.
My dope in yards:
2500 - 28.5 mils
3000 - 42.8 mils
3500 - 60.6 mils
4000 - 81.6 mils
4500 - 106.1 mils
Regarding the March Genesis, completely useless. Tried one and the damn thing stares straight into the barrel at high elevation. Now you need to buy a Delta Tarac which eliminated the point in buying the scope in the first place.
ATACR 7-35 is still the king of ELR.
Show me your dope, distances, and calculations for how you hit all the elevation ranges.
That’s what I doWhile I agree this scope doesn’t have the elevation I’d want in elr competition, it’s not necessary to have 35 mil to be a elr competition scope.
I’ll hide 100 moa scope as an example. Let’s use the tacom bravo tarac as our elevation tool of choice. 100 moa scope is pretty easy to find. Zero 100 moa high at 100 using the bravo in reverse. That gets you through your firs 100 of travel, about 2850yd. You need your next 100 so you crank your scope back to zero abs go through the turret adjustment again. That gets you to 200 moa or about 3675yd. Now for your last 100, to get you to 300 moa, you zero your turrets and put the bravo on in the normal orientation. That gets to about 4300. Now, this is all at My current -1840 da. Want to see how that works at normal comp da?
You’re far from the only elr shooter on this forum. Not nearly as special and superior as you think you are. @Steel head @oneshot.onehit want to add anything since we don’t shoot far enough to run out of elevation?![]()
Man that’s quite a few mortgage payments.Tremor 5 reticle you say?
Eh 1.5 anyway
I doubt that anyone commenting on my posts about the lack of elevation have much ELR experience so here you go.
I run an ATACR 7-35 on a 0-20 EraTac base set on 10 mils for a 100 yard zero with 35 miles left in the turret. This leaves my EraTac with an additional 10 mils at my disposal. My Charlie Tarac is set to 50 mils.
0-35 mils - I use the turret
35-45 mils - turret and EraTac
45-50 mils - turret, EraTac, holdover on reticle (5 mils of holdover)
50-85 mils - Tarac and turret
85-95 mils - Tarac, turret, and EraTac
95+ mils - add holdover or get a second Tarac
Assuming you loose a couple mils to get a 100yard zero, this new scope will give somewhere between 25-29 mils on the turret making hitting all the elevation ranges even more difficult than it already is. It’s not that it can’t be managed with multiple Taracs, it’s just a pain in the ass.
In my opinion, anything claiming to be a true ELR scope should have at least 35 mils. Not to mention a 40 power scope is pretty much useless at these ranges due to mirage. I’d rather they made a 35 power scope with 40 mils of travel. It would have been far more useful.
My dope in yards:
2500 - 28.5 mils
3000 - 42.8 mils
3500 - 60.6 mils
4000 - 81.6 mils
4500 - 106.1 mils
Regarding the March Genesis, completely useless. Tried one and the damn thing stares straight into the barrel at high elevation. Now you need to buy a Delta Tarac which eliminated the point in buying the scope in the first place.
ATACR 7-35 is still the king of ELR.
Show me your dope, distances, and calculations for how you hit all the elevation ranges.
Well said GenoWhile I agree this scope doesn’t have the elevation I’d want in elr competition, it’s not necessary to have 35 mil to be a elr competition scope.
I’ll hide 100 moa scope as an example. Let’s use the tacom bravo tarac as our elevation tool of choice. 100 moa scope is pretty easy to find. Zero 100 moa high at 100 using the bravo in reverse. That gets you through your firs 100 of travel, about 2850yd. You need your next 100 so you crank your scope back to zero abs go through the turret adjustment again. That gets you to 200 moa or about 3675yd. Now for your last 100, to get you to 300 moa, you zero your turrets and put the bravo on in the normal orientation. That gets to about 4300. Now, this is all at My current -1840 da. Want to see how that works at normal comp da?
You’re far from the only elr shooter on this forum. Not nearly as special and superior as you think you are. @Steel head @oneshot.onehit want to add anything since we don’t shoot far enough to run out of elevation?![]()
tremor 5 details?
Fixed the last sentence for youIt has 37.5 mils. Why NF doesn’t list it as such you will have to ask them. NF will tell you the same. Both of my 7-35s have it, as well as the three my shooting buddies own.
It’s been discussed here in the boards several times.
And you’re right, I’m not here to say mine is better than yours or get into a NF vs ZCO argument. Just reiteration what I said on the first page that they missed the mark on this scope before everyone piled on me and stating my case.
ZCOs are great, but in my opinion, they completely missed the mark for what I'm assuming their target audience is.
When comparing the field of view in dis-similar powered scopes multiply the field of view by the power as such:I'm glad I've held off on my 3rd ZCO this long! The price compared to the new current norm for the 5-27 is pretty competitive to me, at least relatively speaking. A few things I am curious about:
1. Is there an increase in FOV with the 8-40 over the 5-27 at equivalent powers?
2. Will the reticle thickness be thinner than the 5-27 at equivalent power?
3. Really curious if there will be a slight optical advantage when comparing the 8-40 and 5-27 at typical powers (say 12-20) since that seems to have been noted with other scopes that have 5-25 and 7-35 or similar versions.
ETA: I just noticed the 15m parallax. Super cool! That nice treat for rimfire, especially if DOF is as awesome at typical of ZCO
It looks like 840 has the 35 Mils turret. So what is the elevation adjustments 28 or 35? Lol
I was wondering the same thingIt looks like 840 has the 35 Mils turret. So what is the elevation adjustments 28 or 35? Lol
Tangent Theta... "Hold my beer"Holy fuck balls. That's going to be pricey. That bitch is going to be a bad mother.