I don’t know the full details but they work close with the JTAC guys… Justin Watts, Tate Streater, Austin Orgain and Clay Blackketter
Rifle Scopes What the pros use confusion
- Thread starter SniperFan78
- Start date
I don’t know the full details but they work close with the JTAC guys… Justin Watts, Tate Streater, Austin Orgain and Clay Blackketter
Hmmmm, is that where JTAC comes from: Justin Tate Austin Clay
So are you saying that ZCO does not work "close" like the above mentioned with any of the shooters that use their scopes?
Flatulence is my superpower. I have cleared rooms and brought tears to the eyes of my victims. My friend, John, used to a lifetime of processing deer and squirrel and other critters found his stomach turning with my foul stench.
Well, that and self-deprecating humor is my other weapon.
Theres obvious value to his question. Someone using an optic because they think its best vs someone using an optic because it was given to them for free are obviously two different things. One holds merit in respect to the qualities of the optic and the other literally says nothing about the optic other than the manufacturer cant stand on the performance of their optic alone. Maybe you dont get it because youre "pretty much infantry".
anyways good luck on your crusade. youre doing great here.
This is called cognitive dissonance. Its impossible to answer the bit about popularity without talking about the data on usage.
Its a retarded question. No one who is sponsored is going to shit publicly on their company and say "You know XXX brand is actually better than the people giving me discounted/free shit, I would rather use them....." So you will never really know unless you are close with those shooters, why they shoot that gear and what their real thoughts are or what their sponsorship level/agreements are.
Again for those of you who don't actually compete, people run the gear they like, If they get good, they may get a discount or free stuff. No one is running shit they hate. Most people aren't really even sponsored in the sense most think, they just get a discount and want to be a jersey boi. It makes them feel special being a big fish in a small pond on the weekends between tps reports.
Now if you want to compare two optics side by side on their merits, then go right ahead. But trying to decipher why pros shoot what and how that translates to the "best" or most "popular" is mental circle jerk with no promised land.
My goodness Bill only so much can be disclosed lol
Like I said in the first post I made in this thread, ZCO does not offer sponsorship like some other larger manufacturers.
ZCO released scopes in 2019 which was a year before the worst pandemic, financial, supply chain crash in our lifetime. ROI takes awhile under normal circumstances, they are doing quite well under everything in their short lifetime.
Understood but you made an inference that Tangent sponsors their shooters more than ZCO does which is the reason why we see so many more TT’s in the top ranks than ZCO and I’m trying to understand if this is indeed the case. I understand you may not be able to say much about TT and ZCO sponsorship but if that was the case why’d you even make the comment about TT sponsorship to begin with?
In the end it really doesn’t matter, I was just surprised there has not been any representation for ZCO in the top 15 for past two years, I expected to see at least one in there.
Also, pretty sure ZCO released scopes in 2018 not 2019???
ZCO was at Shot Show 2018 and we received the first one Wednesday January 16, 2019 around 4:00 pm according to the first picture I took. 
The JTAC guys were some of the top PRS shooters running Tangents with their reticle and they even had exclusivity of the JTAC models before other Tangent dealers.
Let’s also remember that their are other shooting leagues like NRL and matches like the AG Cup that’s not being discussed here as well.
The JTAC guys were some of the top PRS shooters running Tangents with their reticle and they even had exclusivity of the JTAC models before other Tangent dealers.
Let’s also remember that their are other shooting leagues like NRL and matches like the AG Cup that’s not being discussed here as well.
The difference between a 5k TT vs a 2k leupy 5hd is definitely a case of diminishing returns. Ive looked thru them. They both work. ones better. But they both work. Would I take a free Leupy vs paying 5k for a TT or 4.5k for a ZCO? NO. Im a snob. but most people would.
Its actually a great question. And I fucking love it. Wish there was more questions about whats actually good instead of what the bought and paid for from sponsors.
Having said that, do you work for leupold or vortex? I dont believe you.
Having owned a vortex, then go to a NF then got hands on with a ZCo. And now own 2 Tangents I definitely can see and feel the difference. I’m with you, I’d still pay full price to use my tangents over a free scope.
The nice thing about gear these days is that once you get to a certain tier it's all really good.
While a TT or a ZCO are objectively better scopes than a Leupold, it's not going to make you shoot any better.
I can appreciate why people would spend the money on a TT or ZCO. I would love a TT one day. However, my old school k624i's are working perfectly for me. Perhaps one day when money is no object I'll get some TT's or ZCO's. Today is not that day.
I can appreciate why someone would choose a TT/ZCO or a Leupold. As you mention, there's definitely the law of diminishing returns at play. They are all nice scopes, but small features and nuances set the top tier apart from the rest. For some it's worth it, for others it's not. But it won't change your score in a PRS match.
There’s nothing special about either company’s sponsorship.
Neither handed out free optics.
Most anyone who gets any sponsorship deals with either one were already using the respective optic before any sponsorship was discussed/offered.
TT having more in the top hands is more because those guys were already using theta before they were winning a ton of matches. Not because of any sponsorship.
I'm not sure where they even come up with "what the pros use" kinda numbers anymore. We used to get a survey when we attended the PRS Finale. But I haven't seen a survey in a few years.
Free scopes definitely aren't that common. Though Vortex and Leupold top the list for the most. They have the deepest pockets in the industry. Kahles has a bit of a team presence, very small though. I rarely see a Nightforce team shooter, though I see jersey guys with their logo. Burris of course has a small team, this is my 9th season with them, and I'm on my first season on the XLR Industries team. Burris has always treated me amazingly well. It's definitely fair to say the large majority of guys with jerseys are relationship kinda shooters, not necessarily on a team. The teams are where free product comes into play. You can tell the jerseys apart.
But as mentioned, I don't think the optic at the top is the one everyone should rush out and buy. So many good scopes out there these days.
Free scopes definitely aren't that common. Though Vortex and Leupold top the list for the most. They have the deepest pockets in the industry. Kahles has a bit of a team presence, very small though. I rarely see a Nightforce team shooter, though I see jersey guys with their logo. Burris of course has a small team, this is my 9th season with them, and I'm on my first season on the XLR Industries team. Burris has always treated me amazingly well. It's definitely fair to say the large majority of guys with jerseys are relationship kinda shooters, not necessarily on a team. The teams are where free product comes into play. You can tell the jerseys apart.
But as mentioned, I don't think the optic at the top is the one everyone should rush out and buy. So many good scopes out there these days.
Sort of unrelated, but I sort of want to see some super good shooter to emerge from the fog and whip out a Savage lever action topped with a Tasco and proceed to just smoke everybody.
Although not quite so pedestrian as a lever action, Matt A out here in Washington carries a pretty big stick with his factory Savage in PRS. He shoots a purpose built 25 Creedmoore in NRL Hunter, but shoots Production for PRS.
I'm surprised he's not at this match this weekend here in Idaho. Apparently he's smarter than the rest of us. We just spent the entire day trying to shoot in 15 to 20mph winds and snowstorms. Got 8 stages in, shooting 11, hopefully on Sunday.
I only shoot ZCO and TT, nice try.
Sent you a dm
That's what I was looking for, appreciate the honest response.
and two of the JTAC shoot Mk5's now
And all of this is meaningless without more context.
I don't really have a dog in the fight, I still shoot my old K624's. I don't really care who shoots what. But whether members of the JTAC crew shoot Leupold or TT is meaningless without more context around their relationships with both companies, and their personal reasons for using the scopes they do.
At the end of the day, all these scopes work for PRS and that type of shooting. You can win with a Leupold or a TT. Or a ZCO, or a NF, Khales, or a Burris.
That's why these lists can get silly. The conversations that ensue as a result aren't of much value.
^^^ Agreed.
hahaha...and here I was wondering, what we used to call a ground forward air controller, has to do with PRS! LOL
After reading this, what I would LOVE to C is an experienced shooter from here go in the opposite direction from a comparison of "top tier" scopes along the lines of what Carbonbased touched on, which would be a comparison of various "bargain basement" scopes where somebody makes a "good faith" effort to shoot his best w/these scopes to see how his "best" w/these scopes compares to his "best" efforts w/a top tier scope(s).
I'd love to see just how much of a difference that would be as a result of a shootout by a good shot trying to do his best w/cheap/cheaper/low/lower priced scopes ----vs---- the top tier alpha scopes.
Setting aside the assumption that there's going to be a difference, I'm wondering if something like this is actually done, just how much of a difference that would actually be.
Just how good can a good shooter w/the bare minimum (as if your life depended on it) get/"stack up" vs the best.
If you exclude everything else but putting a round "on the money", how do they stack up.
I'd love to see just how much of a difference that would be as a result of a shootout by a good shot trying to do his best w/cheap/cheaper/low/lower priced scopes ----vs---- the top tier alpha scopes.
Setting aside the assumption that there's going to be a difference, I'm wondering if something like this is actually done, just how much of a difference that would actually be.
Just how good can a good shooter w/the bare minimum (as if your life depended on it) get/"stack up" vs the best.
If you exclude everything else but putting a round "on the money", how do they stack up.
Last edited:
The pros want to win, they’re not going to waste their time to go shoot a match with some Chicom shit. Optics don’t have to be TT/ZCO to win, but they have to be reliable. MK5’s, Bushnell Elites, Razors, Torics, etc are pretty much the entry level of what reliable enough to go shoot matches with and be able to depend on them. The pros couple blindly pick up any of those and go win a match with them.
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHO WANTS TO WIN. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHO THE PROS ARE.
I didn't mention ANYTHING about winning a match, nor do I GIVE A FUCK about whether they think it's a waste of time.
I'M interested and I still am.
I didn't mention ANYTHING about winning a match, nor do I GIVE A FUCK about whether they think it's a waste of time.
I'M interested and I still am.
C’mon man. @Convex is just expanding on my joke, a thought experiment. It’s the old “Take the machine equation out of the race” or the “It’s the Indian, not the arrow” sort of deal.
Fun to think about, hard to put into practice.
In my limited knowledge, pro status is when a person is getting paid to do a thing. However, if a lot of PRS shooters are not winning enough to live on it, is the pro status still there because they may have won money or a prize while also having a regular job? For example, I have been watching Hornady podcasts and those guys are in competitions but they also have their "day job" at Hornady.
So, what is a pro shooter?
I like to hunt and no one pays me for that. So, I guess I am an amateur hunter.
So, what is a pro shooter?
I like to hunt and no one pays me for that. So, I guess I am an amateur hunter.
PRS is a hobby.
There are no "professional" PRS shooters like there is professional football players, golfers, soccer players, basketball players, etc.
The term "professional" is used very liberally in the context of PRS. There isn't much that separates a "pro" PRS shooter from the average shooter on say the 'hide. The average person has essentially no chance of making it in the NFL. Most any shooter can become a "pro" PRS shooter with enough time and effort.
That is what I was thinking but since I am not PRS shooter, at least not yet, I did not want to step on toes and more importantly, put my size 14 boot in my mouth.
Don't get me wrong, they are really good at what they do.
But given that it isn't a profession, but a hobby, it isn't like mainstream sports where there is a huge separation between the pro's and the regular person/shooter.
To answer your original question, PRS does have a classification system which there is a "pro" classification. The PRS website is atrocious, so I don't exactly know what puts someone in that designation. Perhaps someone else can answer.
Pro is just a designation for how you score. I think its top 20% are Pro, Next 25 are semi then marksman and amateur. Its just a scoring system like D/C/B/A/AA/Master/ect/.
So when someone who actually knows what they are talking about says a "pro shooter" its generally someone in the top 20% of standings over the course of a season.
2.11.3 PRO Series Classification Bracket Percentages:
Professional – First 20%
Semi-Professional – Next 25%
Marksman – Next 25%
Amateur – Remaining shooters (approx. 30%
So when someone who actually knows what they are talking about says a "pro shooter" its generally someone in the top 20% of standings over the course of a season.
2.11.3 PRO Series Classification Bracket Percentages:
Professional – First 20%
Semi-Professional – Next 25%
Marksman – Next 25%
Amateur – Remaining shooters (approx. 30%
As long as it’s MOA, the make and model of scope doesn’t matter. You can’t win anything using a scope that is in Communist MILs.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,662
- 17,587
If they shoot a 308, it makes up for having a communist scope right?
“Pros” have put together cheap/budget rifles and won club matches going years back, nothing new…the price of the rifle/scope doesn’t matter so long as they do their intended job (accurate enough) and are RELIABLE in doing so.
The more expensive items, rifles and optics, generally make for better reliability and a better user experience…solid feel, smoothness in bolt/feeding, visual clarity, nicer turrets, preferred reticle, etc…yea a $500 scope may track perfectly, for a while…chances of it holding up in the long run vs the top tier are slim. When that cheap scope goes down and what it costs u at that time are anyone’s guess. If I have to run a bolt 5k times in a season, I’d much rather it be on my impact or AI than a factory savage, even tho I could stick an aftermarket barrel on a savage and make it just as accurate.
Top guys ain’t running what they’re running to beat the guy finishing 80th…they never even consider that guy. Guys at the top run what they’re running to compete against the other top guys, with similar skill. And what they each consider the best competitive advantage for themselves doesn’t match what every other top shooter thinks is best for them.
The more expensive items, rifles and optics, generally make for better reliability and a better user experience…solid feel, smoothness in bolt/feeding, visual clarity, nicer turrets, preferred reticle, etc…yea a $500 scope may track perfectly, for a while…chances of it holding up in the long run vs the top tier are slim. When that cheap scope goes down and what it costs u at that time are anyone’s guess. If I have to run a bolt 5k times in a season, I’d much rather it be on my impact or AI than a factory savage, even tho I could stick an aftermarket barrel on a savage and make it just as accurate.
Top guys ain’t running what they’re running to beat the guy finishing 80th…they never even consider that guy. Guys at the top run what they’re running to compete against the other top guys, with similar skill. And what they each consider the best competitive advantage for themselves doesn’t match what every other top shooter thinks is best for them.
Only if you call it “.308.” If you call it “7.62 x 51” you’re definitely a Commie and probably head the DEI department at your local High School.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,662
- 17,587
I made a promise to someone a while back that if I decide to go shoot a match, I'll do it with a Mosin-Nagant and a sub-$1k scope. One of these days, I'll do it. The only problem is that I am not a really good shooter, so it would not prove anything. It would still be fun. I actually set up one of my Mosins for that when I originally got the idea, but a variety of family issues put that on a backburner. Perhaps, I should re-visit that.
As far as top tier scopes go, I have a strong suspicion that for the very skilled shooters, once they have spent some time with the scope, performance differences in PRS/NRL competitions would likely be negligible most of the time
That having been said, during competitions where lighting conditions get really unpleasant, higher end scopes might give you an edge. I have seen conditions where I would be able to make the shot with Tangent and where I would not find the target with many lesser scopes.
ILya
Yes, agreed. and in terms of the folks who don't compete on the highest level, or more importantly want to shoot but can't afford the more expensive scope, and in line w/some of the scopes you've discussed before, I've always wondered just how far you can go "down the ladder" w/scopes.
If there is a bottom line, where is it.
Yes, it would be fun.
If there is a bottom line, where is it.
Yes, it would be fun.
I think MorganL’s point that with “cheap” scopes they may be quite decent optically and work for a while, but if you’re serious about comps or hunting are you willing to take the risk that it might bite the dust when you need it most. From this standpoint one could justify a more expensive scope, but there’s also no guarantee it won’t die either when you need it most, but in general, the costlier scope should be designed to withstand abuse.
Kind of my understanding, too, about pro. For example, I also play guitar and sing. But I am an amateur. I do it for fun, no one pays me to do it. However, if I could get a gig that pays whatever and I still had my day job, I could consider myself a professional musician.
And many is the professional musician who has a regular job.
Examples;
Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden) - commercial airline pilot and part owner of a company that provides flight transport and does modifications.
Bobby Blotzer (Ratt) - a carpet cleaning company.
Rikki Rockett (Poison) - owns a company that builds drum kits to your custom order
David Lee Roth (Van Halen) - certified New York City paramedic
Ted Nugent - deputy sheriff Genesee County, Michigan (back in the day.)
As a musician, I am a pretty good electrician.
thankyouverymuch.
And many is the professional musician who has a regular job.
Examples;
Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden) - commercial airline pilot and part owner of a company that provides flight transport and does modifications.
Bobby Blotzer (Ratt) - a carpet cleaning company.
Rikki Rockett (Poison) - owns a company that builds drum kits to your custom order
David Lee Roth (Van Halen) - certified New York City paramedic
Ted Nugent - deputy sheriff Genesee County, Michigan (back in the day.)
As a musician, I am a pretty good electrician.
thankyouverymuch.
Attachments
I think MorganL’s point that with “cheap” scopes they may be quite decent optically and work for a while, but if you’re serious about comps or hunting are you willing to take the risk that it might bite the dust when you need it most. From this standpoint one could justify a more expensive scope, but there’s also no guarantee it won’t die either when you need it most, but in general, the costlier scope should be designed to withstand abuse.
Others have mis-stated what I've said, and as to your suggested question "but if you’re serious about comps or hunting are you willing to take the risk that it might bite the dust when you need it most.".....
I can answer you right now w/a no, I'm "not serious" because I never said or suggested that in the first place.
If U care to go back and read what I said, I suggested a comparison.
I never said/suggested that anybody buy some cheap scopes and go hunting, that would be ridiculous, so let me know where U found that.
Comparison=tests-targets No bears-mountain lions-wolves.
Others have mis-stated what I've said, and as to your suggested question "but if you’re serious about comps or hunting are you willing to take the risk that it might bite the dust when you need it most.".....
I can answer you right now w/a no, I'm "not serious" because I never said or suggested that in the first place.
If U care to go back and read what I said, I suggested a comparison.
I never said/suggested that anybody buy some cheap scopes and go hunting, that would be ridiculous, so let me know where U found that.
Comparison=tests-targets No bears-mountain lions-wolves.
Last edited:
Because you quoted me I think you may be responding to me, but I was not responding to you in my quote, just making a comment to the thread in general.
Maaaaybe ... but if you really know where to look, you can find some 'pro' shooters doing exactly that. In the public domain. Shhhh ...
Can only speak for my side of the pond, but two years ago nobody used Leupolds or Zeiss. Several do now, but not one of them paid for their scopes. That being said, it gave me a chance to look through both and they are both very nice. If not for the sponsorships, the Zeiss would not even be on my radar. One of our top shooters has in a few years gone from Kahles to ZCO and now Leupold. I honestly doubt any of the three will cost him points over the other, it sure does not seem like it. Have not asked him about it though.
