TT, my bad... I got it confused with ZCO as to where they're made.
- Thread starter KevinWood44
- Start date
They used to say "Made in USA" on the bottom of the NXS's 20 years ago when I was selling them at the gun store, but I haven't seen one in recent years with it.
Then you've obviously never compared a new ATACR F1 5-25x56 right next to a Burris XTR-3i 5.5-30x56... I have...I own both. I'd say the glass was par for the course. Which means it's good glass at the Burris price point of $1,500 (like I stated above), just not $3,100 MSRP good. I plan on keeping the scope, as I like the scope, and the turrets are amazing, so is the tracking and zero-stop, and I really like the MIL-XT reticle, just wish the glass was brighter and it didn't look like I was scoping through a paper towel roll with the huge amount of black ring and small FOV inside the scope.
And like I said, the whole rest of the scope is amazing, just sub-par glass for the price. If it was a $2,000-2,500 scope, I'd say it wouldn't be a bad buy, but at $3,100... Nope. Granted, I paid about $2,500 for mine brand new, so I'm not sorely disappointed, just unimpressed by the glass at the MSRP price. My other $3,000+ scopes have amazing glass. So I was expecting to be blown away. I wasn't.
You missed my point about what is important to me. Glass is low priority. What appears great to you will likely be different to me. It is really subjective. I have had lots of scopes from a variety of tier 1 brands. The image is always a bit different but which is better and how is it truly better is a personal choice.
Tracking accuracy in all weather conditions is of paramount importance to me followed by reliability. Scope isn’t worth crap if it can’t arrange for a perfect intersection of POA and POI. I can count on NF for both. Have shot my AT in all types of weather here in New England. NF has never let me down.
No slam on Burris and I haven’t looked through an XTR3. Maybe someday I will get an opportunity to do so and will be more impressed than I have been with the other models of Burris.
YMMV
Mk 5 5-25 illuminated. I believe I paid $2800 for it. The glass was better than the SS 5-20 that came off but it did not track which for me rendered it useless. It went down the road and the old heavy ugly reliable SS went back on until I got my ZCO. THE SS is now on sale so cheap I’m considering buying a few just to stack up for whatever.
Worst value for optics?
Anything with a substantial Military/Law Enforcement discount. That discounted price should be standard pricing.
Leupold, Vortex, Athlon, Nightforce. All over priced, in my opinion.
Honorable mention to Steiner M series.
Anything with a substantial Military/Law Enforcement discount. That discounted price should be standard pricing.
Leupold, Vortex, Athlon, Nightforce. All over priced, in my opinion.
Honorable mention to Steiner M series.
Last edited:
Athlon is OVERpriced?!?! Now I've heard it all. Anyone who actually used the Midas Tac, Ares, Cronus, etc will ALL universally say they punch well above their price. I'm assuming you have used them otherwise you'd just bc ignorantly talking out of your a__
the problem with athlon is they're almost all outdated designs compared to the currentmarket. so yeah a new $1100 (insert any number here) scope is gonna beat out a 4 year old design with the same price tag
I agree they may need updated, but man they’re a solid budget choice. You can bet on them just plain working reliably.
Sounds like there are haters in every camp and at least one guy who doesn't like "insert brand here" optics regardless of what the masses say or the hive here on the hide.
Last edited:
I want to see what it is like to be the one doing the defecating.
All scopes are trash compared to Swarovsky.
(wooh, don't light that match...)
In this thread. I have seen just about every premium brand disdained by one or another. Kind of like bickering on "The Honeymooners."
All scopes are trash compared to Swarovsky.
(wooh, don't light that match...)
In this thread. I have seen just about every premium brand disdained by one or another. Kind of like bickering on "The Honeymooners."
The tactical series of ffp Swarovski scopes are terrible. Specifically because they don't exist.
I both agree and disagree with the Steiner mention. The scopes themselves are very good, robust, and reliable. The variability in the IQ from unit to unit is much greater than should be allowed.
Yeah that's why I give it honorable mention. They're pushing $4k asking price, but if you can get one for $3k or less, it's fantastic. Not quite overpriced, but maybe priced just a bit higher than they should be.
As I said, honorable mention. Gosh I wish they shipped with an scr2 reticle.
The t series is better in every way over the m series... And you have the scr2.
You are welcome to look through one at a match when I can go next or if your up north if your still in ut
Not sure about the T series being better in every way…. Certainly makes it a hard sell to spend the extra $$$ though.
I’ve got a couple M series that are fantastic and a couple I wish were as good as the T series. The T series punches way above its price point. The turrets are better on the M series and I need to send the turds back to Steiner to fix the IQ issue, but the track true and work well. The M series was very attractive before everything German doubled in price.
Every m series not a 4-27 I have turned have been meh... So add that to the list of variability
From my own personal experience and money...
The NF ATACR F1 5-25x56 glass is sub-par at best for the $3,100 MSRP. Glass-wise, it's about a $1,500 scope tops. The parallax is way off, too...At 100 yards, I'm running mine on about 60 yards for clear images.But everything else is phenomenal. The scope is robust, solid, the turrets are amazing (probably the best feeling turrets I have currently), the tracking is true, the ZS is great, and the MIL-XT reticle is awesome... It just lacks tremendously in the glass department for it's price.
You say you "know" all NF scopes use LOW glass but do you actually know? I don't know if they do or don't but I do know the glass in the ATACR line varies greatly. The 5-25 ATACR has the worst glass of the line then in order 4-20, 4-16, and 7-35 being the best. A discounted or used 7-35 is the best value for the money available including glass quality. If you pay full price for a NF you must be in a hurry or a bit on the dumb side just because you can consistently find them discounted all over the internet. The ATACR design has it's quirks none of which hinder me in competition or any other situation.
That variability is a bastard
The whole ATACR line does use glass from LOW. Not so well kept secret. Keep in mind all lenses even from the same place are not all specd the same. Even something like Schott can be specd way lower end than something in an S&B for example. Plus not just glass, but also coatings contribute to what you see along with scope design. NF could’ve changed coatings or specd higher glass for the 735 line vs the 525 line. Although I do agree that the 525 glass is definitely worse than the 735.
Yeah, it's pretty well-known for decades where NF gets their glass. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it's a secret.
LOW is who builds the Vortex Razor Gen3's and bunch of the NF scopes. They also build the Zeiss Conquest V4 and LRP S3 scopes. And many other high-end brands of optics built in Japan. And I'm sure more companies source their glass than we'll ever know.
And I would never pay retail for any of my alpha-tier scopes...Even brand new. I can't discuss pricing, but I got a substantial price on my ATACR F1 5-25x56. Enough so, that even with the sub-par glass, I'm going to keep it, because I like everything else about the scope, and it's still very useable.
1100 USD discount? What a freaking mark-up. To still make money after that? Almost as if they do like other companies and have a mark-up to cover warranty.
And yes, Virginia (in general, not you specifically,) all companies include money in a price to cover warranty. It's called business.
I know NF says that their MIL/LEO/VIP pricing is their cost but I just don't believe that. There's no way they only have a few hundred dollar margin in a $2600 optic, it would be nearly impossible to stay in business with that little profit. It might be their wholesale pricing to dealers, but it's certainly not their cost.
That's why I put NF, Leupold, and Vortex high on the list. There's a lot of guys cashing out on that discount, and a company needs to run a profit.
For sure and that's messed up if they are using that program to flip items. I think a lot of Vortex flips come from guys picking those items up off of the prize table at comps more than anything. I have almost always bought NF, Leupy and Vortex items lightly used, usually on here, for even less than the programs sell them for.
Nightforce scopes vary greatly from scope to scope. I have a 5-25 that is better than any 7-35 I have looked through. Same with tracking error. Some are spot on, while others aren’t.
I currently own 6 ATACRs, owned 8 total, looked through many many others and haven't found this to be accurate. Haven't had any tracking issues and the glass quality is pretty consistent within a specific model. Every manufacturer is going to have a lemon from time to time but for me and most of the people I personally know that own NFs the mechanical quality is awesome and the glass quality is pretty consistent within specific models.
As far as your 5-25 goes consider yourself lucky because if it's better than "any 7-35 you've looked though" you have something special.
Most companies aim to make products that have a production cost that is 30% of the retail price. Id say Zco can build a 527 for landed cost of around $1,200-$1,400
And I know some businesses with a bit more margin. It is not uncommon to have a 40 to 60 percent mark-up.
Poster above said the "mark up" was 330%.
If 30% is just the raw product, there is a substantial amount of money spend on R&D and testing, then you have to receive 100s-1000s of stock, check everything over, store it until orders are processed, then ship the right product to the right people, then all the marketing and CS shit.
I imagine the profit margins are no where near 333%, not if you have a decent facility and even a moderate number of staff members.
Conflating high prices/high discounts with bad value is pretty disingenuous.
I think its more fair to say MIL/LEO are getting an exceptional deal.
The discounts are great and very welcome, in no way is anyone unappreciative of those opportunities but there’s definitely still some meat on the bone there even with those discounts. In other words, to imply that those discounts represent their absolute bottom dollar is laughable but I’m in no way suggesting that the discounts should be even steeper.
There’sa big difference between margin and markup.
I am surprised I've only seen the SIG Tango6 line called out once. I thought they were pretty well regarded as being overpriced for what you get - if you're buying new or vic. MAP. They're fine at the right price, but having to look for discontinued, demo, or "used like new" to get value is a bit of a bummer.
I was not a business major nor in manufacturing management, so forgive my ignorance on the topic...
What is the most common business term used to describe the per item selling cost for a manufacturer to break even and not lose money on any given sku#?
Obviously that number should include all costs to the manufacturer.
Thnx
What is the most common business term used to describe the per item selling cost for a manufacturer to break even and not lose money on any given sku#?
Obviously that number should include all costs to the manufacturer.
Thnx
You said it, it is called a "break-even point"
If you are talking about the cost of everything they pay for (product, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, etc) to get the product ready to be sold, that is called the "landed" price. Meaning how much does it cost to finally land in stores. Not sure if that helps or answers your question
So the "landed price" includes all costs to the manufacturer and is the "break even" point... thnx
I am lost, man. Where did someone post 330%?
Uh no.... The Break even point is highly subjective and assumes a certain sales volume or selling price both of which the market will dicate but I digress this does not need to be a econ and marketing class.
As alluded to a bit in a few other posts above, what the incost is to make a scope vs what they need to sell it at to make a profit is all highly subjective and to try and guess a companies internal cost structure is tough if your not in that market.....
He said the production cost is only 30% of the retail price. That means the mark up is 3.3333x, or 333%.
Probably easier to just was 1/3 the price is the product. 2/3 is profot and cost of running the business
ALL of these companies are greedy, overpriced, and overrated.
Remember that the next time you grab a free scope or certificate off of the prize table or enjoy one of the many matches they sponsor. Not to mention the expectation that they all create the next new cutting edge technology for bottom dollar…
Remember that the next time you grab a free scope or certificate off of the prize table or enjoy one of the many matches they sponsor. Not to mention the expectation that they all create the next new cutting edge technology for bottom dollar…
Oh fuck here we go again….
Earnings before interest and taxes - Wikipedia
If that’s the case no one would run them. This sounds like the most ridiculous thing I’ve read on this thread since you’ve ruled out it being a “fluke”. That means you really believe this.
You couldn’t make out a 10” plate at 500 on an overcast day but could see it with your naked eye. I’m not saying you’re making it up, just noting it doesn’t make sense. I own 3 ZCOs so know a little about them. I also own all sorts of other brands from Arken to multiple others.
Of course I believe it jackass, I wrote it. Glad you could put that much together, try not to strain yourself too much going forward, Im not that cryptic.That means you really believe this.
Last edited:
Similar threads
