Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta Review

BreisV said:

After reading countless glowing reviews, I just purchased my first Tangent Theta 5-25 with the Gen 3 XR reticle. I own half a dozen Nightforce ATACR scopes with Tremor 3 and Mil XT reticles. Perhaps it is just me, but I find the Gen 3 XR reticle almost unusable below 12x. It simply becomes too small. Above 12x it is great all the way to 25x. The Nightforce 5-25 is usable throughout the entire magnification range. The Nightforce 7-35 is good from 7- 30 before the reticle becomes a bit too thick. The TT diopter locking knob feels cheap, the windage and elevation markings are too small, and the parallax knob is too stiff. Frankly, while the glass is superb, it is not noticeably better than the ATACR glass unless you make a massive effort to discern a difference. Better eye box is the one feature that is obviously better than the NF scopes. Overall, the Nightforce ATACR scopes seem much more robust. While I realize that Tangent Theta scopes are considered the top alpha scope, for $5k and up, I am not particularly impressed. Who am I? I'm just an ordinary former Marine 8541 (1984-1992) long range shooting and reloading enthusiast. I'm returning the TT to EuroOptic. I have a ZCO 4-20 on order and have high hopes that it will best my Nightforce scopes. We shall see.

Click to expand...

Please post your thoughts on the ZCO. I have TT and ZCO and am very happy with both. Looking forward to another set of eyes/opinion.

I also own a ZCO and have/have had ATACR's. The ZCO will not disappoint.

I had a 4-20 mpct1 zco and 7-35 mil c atacr. Honestly i preferred the atacr. They’re not an apples to apples comparison due to the mag range and field of view but i didn’t notice enough difference to say the zco was worth a few hundred bucks (at the time) more than the atacr. I’m sure I’m in the minority but to my eyes the atacr looked better all around. I guess I’m lucky i have shitty eyes

Had TT and ZCO, have owned everything under the sun short of a newer March and ZP5, which my buddy has.

Sold the TT, Bought another ZCO. Is a significantly better all around optic IMO. ATACR is not even in the same zip code. If you think the ATACR looked better you didn't setup the diopter correctly. Most people are running optics not even setup for their eyes, which has predictable outcomes.

If you are anywhere in the realm of ZCO price point, just buy it.

The XR Gen 3 reticle is too thin to be usefull. I shot 2 matches back to back with the TT and ZCO with 3. It was much easier to find and engage with the ZCO.

Appreciate the honest review and looking forward to your thoughts on the ZCO.

My scopes range from about $700 to $2100. The $2100 are better, but not 3x better. Diminishing returns.

I don’t have the stomach to try out the $4K+ options. Thankful for those who do.

DeathBeforeDismount said:

Had TT and ZCO, have owned everything under the sun short of a newer March and ZP5, which my buddy has.

Sold the TT, Bought another ZCO. Is a significantly better all around optic IMO. ATACR is not even in the same zip code. If you think the ATACR looked better you didn't setup the diopter correctly. Most people are running optics not even setup for their eyes, which has predictable outcomes.

If you are anywhere in the realm of ZCO price point, just buy it.

The XR Gen 3 reticle is too thin to be usefull. I shot 2 matches back to back with the TT and ZCO with 3. It was much easier to find and engage with the ZCO.

Click to expand...

Nah it was properly set up…not my first scope. Scopes in that price range really appeal to personal preference. Also it was a comparison between a 50mm objective and a 56mm. I haven’t looked through the 5-27 but again, for me, i prefer everything about the atacr other than the rotating ocular.

Ericsl2 said:

Nah it was properly set up…not my first scope. Scopes in that price range really appeal to personal preference. Also it was a comparison between a 50mm objective and a 56mm. I haven’t looked through the 5-27 but again, for me, i prefer everything about the atacr other than the rotating ocular.

Click to expand...

Yea everyones eyes are a bit difference. The ATACR has that cooler color tone without the POP. Resolution is good but like S&B, makes it hard for targets to pop out when they are hidden or trying to find something in Brush/Trees.

I bought and quickly sold an ATACR 5-25 after upgrading from a Gen 2 Razor. Was not impressed with the NF, although the 7-35 did have much nicer glass than the 5-25 and 4-16s I have had. Went back to the Razor, Liked the controls, turrets and honestly glass better. Then moved up to a ZCO and fell in love. Only thing that looked better than my old PM2 from a decade ago. I recently bought a TT XRGen3 to see how it compares to the ZCO and after running it for a few weeks, got rid of it for another ZCO. Glass wise it was very good, even thought I liked the ZCO color tones better. The Turrets on the TT are incredible and the tooless zero was so easy and quick. Everything else from reticle to reticle thickness, to parallax to eyebox and even glass I gave the edge to the ZCO. Oh and its $1K cheaper which is not bad.

I have pretty bad eyes and some colorblindness too, so maybe that plays into reticle thickness and color preferences. I found it much easier to find and engage targets on lower power (I like to compete between 10-12x on positional and maybe 16x for prone stages) with a usable reticle in the 3 and 3X than the Gen3XR.

Have you tried the new “Reticle to End All Reticles”?

Pretty sure your life will be complete once you do, even if you were a Marine.

TheHorta said:

Have you tried the new “Reticle to End All Reticles”?

Pretty sure your life will be complete once you do, even if you were a Marine.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about the official reticle of the PRS here?

BreisV said:

After reading countless glowing reviews, I just purchased my first Tangent Theta 5-25 with the Gen 3 XR reticle. I own half a dozen Nightforce ATACR scopes with Tremor 3 and Mil XT reticles. Perhaps it is just me, but I find the Gen 3 XR reticle almost unusable below 12x. It simply becomes too small. Above 12x it is great all the way to 25x. The Nightforce 5-25 is usable throughout the entire magnification range. The Nightforce 7-35 is good from 7- 30 before the reticle becomes a bit too thick. The TT diopter locking knob feels cheap, the windage and elevation markings are too small, and the parallax knob is too stiff. Frankly, while the glass is superb, it is not noticeably better than the ATACR glass unless you make a massive effort to discern a difference. Better eye box is the one feature that is obviously better than the NF scopes. Overall, the Nightforce ATACR scopes seem much more robust. While I realize that Tangent Theta scopes are considered the top alpha scope, for $5k and up, I am not particularly impressed. Who am I? I'm just an ordinary former Marine 8541 (1984-1992) long range shooting and reloading enthusiast. I'm returning the TT to EuroOptic. I have a ZCO 4-20 on order and have high hopes that it will best my Nightforce scopes. We shall see.

Click to expand...

Interesting, it's rare that we hear your results, but everyone's eyes are different . If you thought the glass in the TT is not noticeably better than ATACR then my guess is you will have similar experience with ZCO. What's beneficial about personally testing the scopes is to confirm that what you already have is good enough for you, too many look for "something better" when what they have already is pretty amazing.

I am curious though, I felt my TT was built very "robust" - meaning fit and finish, built well and able to withstand a beating (but I admit looks can be deceiving), so when you say "Overall, the Nightforce ATACR scopes seem much more robust." on what criteria are you basing this off of?

NF already has half the shooting community brainwashed with the marketing dollars they spend thinking their shit is immortal. People can't quanitfy what makes them better. NF makes a good product but at the price they go for, their glass and features are lacking. Its a cult brand with people living in the early 2010s.

Well I disagree a Bit. subpar glass for the price, tracking is fine, construction is fine. Reticle selection sucks, parallax is fine other than being sensitive to wide ranges, windage and elevation markings are spaced too far, Mil Price is not that good (around 20%, other companies are 40-60%) but better than nothing and I know of a few people who had issues where NF blew them off including one on this site that had to Sue them for them to fix/replace his optic. Oh and a rotating ocular. LOL. They are for the most part imported Japanese Scopes with similar glass and construction to optics priced much less. However they are priced like premium Euro glass.

They spend more in marketing than most optic manufactures, and that is where alot of your money is going. They make good optics but the cult like following is unwarranted IMO.

The top finishers in PRS/NRL tend to be sponsored shooters for the most part. Last years PRS Finale in order from 1st to 15th. According to PRS website there are more people running ZCO than NF, but that doesn't mean much.

Tangent
Vortex
NF
Leupold
US Optics
Leupold
Vortex
Vortex
Tangent
Whatever Tate shot which was not a NF
ZCO
No Idea
Vortex
S&B
Tangent

So there you go, 1, possibly 2 NF in the top 15 finishers. All this tells me is great shooters can win with anything.

I agree with you Kahles is inferior to NF, both are overpriced and under performing at their market prices. Spec ops runs whatever the bean counters in SOCOM decide to buy. Tier 1 units have been pretty tied to S&B since the GWOT started from what I can tell. Crane has always liked NF, even when the PM2 was clearly a superior product to the legacy NXS SFP optics. Army SOF runs whatever the unit has on hand. The new MK22 contract trial happened before ZCO came out or was able to enter. Even then, price matters, which is why non SOF is getting the MK5 instead of the 735NF.
S&B is not as reliable or as durable as NF, Vortex Razor, Bushnell ET or ZCO.

Look NF makes reliable and servicable optic. They have their pros and cons like everyone else. But when compared side by side with a ZCO or TT, its not in the same tier. Thats just a fact and no amount of fanboism or brand loyalty is going to change that unless they come out with a new product. Maybe the new Ziess LRP is in that tier as well, but its too early to tell.

Threads like this are interesting. I’ve owned about 7 7-35 atacrs and several TT’s among others. The TT is in fact better than the NF. That’s not a question. The question is do YOU actually know how to tell the difference in optics? I’m not trynna be rude but the average consumer much like yourself will take a couple optics out to the range on a decent day, and just give each one a couple looks staring at the same target with no quantifiable tests.
For the record I think the 7-35 is a great scope at around $3k. But at the new price it’s not worth it.
2 things that tell me you’re relatively inexperienced in this area are that 1) you said the reticle in a 7-35 is too thick past 30x. The reticle is the same thickness throughout the mag range. That’s what a FFP scope does. 2) you decided to reference what top shooters shoot when 99% are sponsored. That’s a terrible way to tell what a good scope is. And if anything, it makes a stronger case for the TT because they are the only company that doesn’t sponsor any shooters so all those guys had to actually pay for them.
Now if an atacr is a better scope for you based on other features like the gen3xr being too fine (which I agree with) or the turrets being easier to read (I also agree with) or you prefer the rotating ocular (I do) then that’s totally fine.

BreisV said:

You can't be serious. I've been shooting long range since I was a kid and got paid to do it and teach it for eight years in the Marine Corps. I have a comprehensive understanding of how ffp scopes function. The apparent thickness of the reticle changes when you change the magnification. You are referring to the functional thickness, which is irrelevant to my critique.

Click to expand...

.3 Mila of coverage of a target is .3 mils regardless of what mag you’re on.

If you question the masses and provide a differing opinion based on your experiences, you will be shunned as a non-believer. It’s a $5,000 optic. You have to like it more than everything that costs less than or equal to.

BreisV said:

Really? Wow, I learn something new everyday on this site! Why are you being purposely obtuse? You know precisely what I am talking about. Also, why would anyone buy seven ATACR 7-35 scopes? Sounds like BS to me.

Click to expand...

Got the first one when only the mil-r was available. Hated that reticle. Then the mil-c came out. Shots matches with that and didn’t like that either because no tree. Went to the t3 and tried to like the wind dots. But didn’t like that reticle either. Went back to a Mil c then back to a t3 then the h59 came out. Then the mil-xt is the last one I had. Still my favorite reticle in any scope out there. Shot all of them in several matches.

No you must love the tangent and even more so if it comes in that fancy flat dirt coyote.

There's no way you can say TT is better than NF, ZCO, etc unless you're ready to show your methods and result. Setting them all on a 2x4, walking a line, and saying "yes this is good" is still a subjective opinion. Also what's the track record. Wasn't too long ago TTs were getting crushed in mounts.

Lol if you search my history I’m sure all the sale transactions are there. And I’m sure the buyers still remember buying them from me. It’s fine, tho no skin off my back. I was just simply hoping to educate people that may read this later that you have to know what you’re looking for in comparisons. You don’t know what you don’t know.

elmuzzlebreak said:

No you must love the tangent and even more so if it comes in that fancy flat dirt coyote.

There's no way you can say TT is better than NF, ZCO, etc unless you're ready to show your methods and result. Setting them all on a 2x4, walking a line, and saying "yes this is good" is still a subjective opinion. Also what's the track record. Wasn't too long ago TTs were getting crushed in mounts.

Click to expand...

Or you can set them on a 2x4 and put optical charts down range. Color charts. Try to induce CA. Check image distortion. Center resolution. Micro contrast. Then look at them off the balcony off the 5th story during dusk/evening and put them in challenging conditions to test for flare control, low light performance, etc. Again, you don’t know what you don’t know. Most of these scopes will separate themselves past 700yds in challenging conditions.

BreisV said:

The most obvious is the use of a plastic locking ring for the diopter adjustment.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure the locking ring is aluminum.

BreisV said:

I had a hard time getting it tight enough to prevent the diopter adjustment from moving, and trying to tighten it tends to move the diopter.

Click to expand...

I did not, hold the ocular and twist the lock ring, is it permanent like we'd usually think with the term "lock", no, but I haven't found any that truly lock out, nor do I think it is completely necessary, just tight enough to avoid accidently movement is typically sufficient.

BreisV said:

This is a worry when the reticle is already so thin.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow, are you saying the slightest diopter movement would alter the focus of the reticle? I found a more forgiving range during adjustment as I do on most scopes, which is why I had to adopt the fine tune method of diopter adjustment because I would think the reticle was set properly (and parallax) but would discover parallax was slight off and/or image was not ideal. I recall hk dave's post a few years back, in fact, it was this post that first got me to consider how I'm adjusting diopter, but specific to the TT he was having issues and thought he had a bum TT until he was educated with how to setup the diopter and after doing so voila, the TT performed to his expectations, here is his comparison for reference:

BreisV said:

The overall "feel" was simply not what I expected compared to the ATACR. This is picking nits, but at this level that is what you do. I really prefer the parallax adjustment feel on the ATACR and I definitely prefer range approximation numbers as opposed to the TT representation.

Click to expand...

Fair enough - "feel" is very much personal preference. I've had varied results of parallax and magnification between different copies of the same scope and sometimes the tightness/resistance settles down over time and sometimes I've had to send them to warranty because I prefer a particular feel too.

BreisV said:

I prefer the TT illumination adjustment to the ATACR button. The numbers on the Gen 3 XR reticle are inexplicably fine and thinly drawn compared to either Nightforce reticle. If they were the same price, it would be a toss up. For $5-6k, it isn't close.

Click to expand...

Once again I think your situation proves what many of us often say within this class of scope - choose based on reticle and mechanics. We can obsess way too much over optical characteristics (I am guilty of this) - is there an argument to be made over higher end optics, yes, but at the end of the day plenty of shooters have been successful with far less quality optics even in competition. DeathBD said it best "All this tells me is great shooters can win with anything."

Covertnoob5 said:

Or you can set them on a 2x4 and put optical charts down range. Color charts. Try to induce CA. Check image distortion. Center resolution. Micro contrast. Then look at them off the balcony off the 5th story during dusk/evening and put them in challenging conditions to test for flare control, low light performance, etc. Again, you don’t know what you don’t know. Most of these scopes will separate themselves past 700yds in challenging conditions.

Click to expand...

Still sounds pretty subjective to me

BreisV said:

I don't buy it, but frankly I don't care.

Click to expand...

Not that @Covertnoob5 needs me or anyone else, but 'noob knows his stuff, I know him and I know others who shoot with him. I don't think any of us need to flaunt our credentials, this is an internet forum and anyone can be blowing smoke here, but what's been nice about the Hide is it has had the most "helpful" bunch I've seen in any shooting forum, granted that seems to be changing the past couple years but have not been able to find any other (forum) that offered up the expertise this place does while keeping Fudd's and Trolls to a minimum.

According to your profile, you literally joined a week ago, and you make a post claiming that NF ATACR is a far better scope than TT. You may be totally genuine and are simply sharing that you were disappointed with what you experienced with TT, and that is totally fair, I get it, but your experience is definitely the exception and not the rule. Again, I am not discounting your experience because after all it is "your" experience, but when someone offers a different experience it doesn't immediately mean they are wrong or must have an ulterior motive simply because "their" experience was different.

elmuzzlebreak said:

Still sounds pretty subjective to me

Click to expand...

It is subjective, and that's what I try to explain in all my reviews, any "optics" review where we are using uncontrolled conditions and our own eyeballs is going to be subjective, that being said, we can try our best to control the situation and the repeatability of our own testing. The method 'noob listed is very similar to how I test, I have a whole spreadsheet I print out for each scope with set parameters of what to look for and my test target is a series of color chart, high/low contrast charts and resolution charts, I do that at closer distance to rule out atmospheric interference and then I take the scopes out to at least 700 yards and do long range tests where I also check DOF, mirage, etc. But even this isn't perfect, it is still highly subjective and I will typically state this is "my opinion" and the fact I do have bias (everybody does) but I try to point out my bias' to help others determine if that's something that will bother them or not be a big deal.

DeathBeforeDismount said:

The top finishers in PRS/NRL tend to be sponsored shooters for the most part. Last years PRS Finale in order from 1st to 15th. According to PRS website there are more people running ZCO than NF, but that doesn't mean much.

Tangent
Vortex
NF
Leupold
US Optics
Leupold
Vortex
Vortex
Tangent
Whatever Tate shot which was not a NF
ZCO
No Idea
Vortex
S&B
Tangent

So there you go, 1, possibly 2 NF in the top 15 finishers. All this tells me is great shooters can win with anything.

I agree with you Kahles is inferior to NF, both are overpriced and under performing at their market prices. Spec ops runs whatever the bean counters in SOCOM decide to buy. Tier 1 units have been pretty tied to S&B since the GWOT started from what I can tell. Crane has always liked NF, even when the PM2 was clearly a superior product to the legacy NXS SFP optics. Army SOF runs whatever the unit has on hand. The new MK22 contract trial happened before ZCO came out or was able to enter. Even then, price matters, which is why non SOF is getting the MK5 instead of the 735NF.
S&B is not as reliable or as durable as NF, Vortex Razor, Bushnell ET or ZCO.

Look NF makes reliable and servicable optic. They have their pros and cons like everyone else. But when compared side by side with a ZCO or TT, its not in the same tier. Thats just a fact and no amount of fanboism or brand loyalty is going to change that unless they come out with a new product. Maybe the new Ziess LRP is in that tier as well, but its too early to tell.

Click to expand...

Assuming the following prices, what would you recommend as alternatives:

7-35 ATACR mil-xt - $2750-2800. Vortex 6-36 and Leica PRS are probably a good alternatives. Anything else? Mark 5?

4-16 ATACR -$1800 - Leupold mark 5, anything else?

I can see the 5-25 having lots of competition at it's features and price point. I can see making the claim that it doesn't stand out from it's peers, which it doesn't.

But in the 7-35 and 4-16 space, I'm having a hard time finding alternatives at a similar price that are clearly superior. I'm genuinely curious, maybe there are some scopes out there that I've missed, that I should be looking at?

BreisV said:

I only started this thread to give my honest opinion that the TT underwhelmed me for the money and hopefully give pause to members feeling the need to dump their NF for the latest must have scope.

Click to expand...

The latest must have scope that's been the top performer since 2014? That "latest" scope?

The fact that you think you're doing others a service by talking them out of a TT is pretty tough to reconcile. Lined up behind you in droves, are owners of $1000 optics making the same claims about your golden calf optic that you're making about the TT.

They aren't correct in their claims, and neither are you. You'd know that if you'd have put a thousand rounds down range with that TT. Did you even mount it and use it? Doesn't sound like it. If you really want to give an honest eval of a piece of gear, you actually have to mount it and use it for some meaningful period of time. Then, for your opinion of where that product fits in the hierarchy to matter at all, you need to do the same thing with every other optic you're comparing it against.

The simple fact that its spring of 2022 and you're just now trying out a TT and a ZCO is pretty telling of your level of commitment and experience evaluating scopes. This isn't to say you don't have a commitment or experience to the discipline, because I'm sure you do to some degree given your background. This simply matter-of-factly demonstrates that you aren't very concerned with evaluating new products and not very qualified to be placing them in the hierarchy in an objective manner. At 58yrs old, how certain are you that your eyes will let you give an objective evaluation of even the optical aspects of scopes?

You can say you don't want to spend the money. That's fine for them and you. You can say you prefer this or that. That's fine for all as well. Point in fact, you can say whatever you want, but those with more rifle optics experience than you can see when what you're saying stops lining up with reality, even when you can't. We can also see when someone reaches their comfort level regarding how much they are willing to spend for the tier of performance they want. The fact that you keep talking about the money aspect means it's too large an influence on you to make an objective evaluation of the scopes capability. When you're looking for a top performer in any product category, cost stops being a factor. In a capitalist economic system, its a given that the best things are going to be very expensive compared to the lesser products. This doesn't mean the most expensive is the best, but it means cost can't be in the equation when making an objective determination of capability.

I don't say all of this to irritate you, but in the hope that you see there's a difference between sharing your perceptions and trying to influence others based on those perceptions.

Don't let my dissent concern you in the slightest. I sell TT's... so there will be at least 5-20 people in here shortly to claim I'm a shill. I said TT was the best in 2014, and I still say they are the best today. Many that disagreed with me then, agree with me now. I am anxiously awaiting a new company to take the throne with the next amazing product... and I won't care what it costs if it's better than the TT's and allows me to do more with my rifle. I hope you find an optic you're happy with all around, and I hope you can continue to enjoy this wonderful discipline. I sell a ton of nightforce, vortex, S&B, and other brands for euro optic and other vendors every year. The TT isn't a good fit for everyone's budget or application. It's great that there are so many options out there.

I agree with others in that you need to properly set-up the optic, and get rounds downrange, in various conditions/environments, at various distances to really get an understanding of how stuff compares. Maybe the OP did just that, so this is by no means an attempt to dogpile, but all to often people go outside on a nice day for a few minutes and think a beta compares to an alpha.

I'll just say that having owned NF ATACR, Tangent Theta, Zero Compromise (and many others), my experience/opinion is that ATACR is not in the same tier in terms of performance. That doesn't mean the ATACR is 'bad' by any means, and the pricing of ATACRs on the secondary market can provide quite a bit of value.

Personally, I prefer the overall package of the ZCO to the Tangent, but there are areas that the Tangent out performs the ZCO, and both TT/ZCO are a step above ATACR to me.

Secant said:

I agree with others in that you need to properly set-up the optic, and get rounds downrange, in various conditions/environments, at various distances to really get an understanding of how stuff compares. Maybe the OP did just that, so this is by no means an attempt to dogpile, but all to often people go outside on a nice day for a few minutes and think a beta compares to an alpha.

Click to expand...

+1

Since EO's return policy is 15 days and a lack of full refund for a mounted scope, it's hard to put the OP's review on level terms with others like covertnoob and orkan.

That said, thank you for your service, BreisV; enjoy the ZCO and drive on.

Secant said:

I agree with others in that you need to properly set-up the optic, and get rounds downrange, in various conditions/environments, at various distances to really get an understanding of how stuff compares. Maybe the OP did just that, so this is by no means an attempt to dogpile, but all to often people go outside on a nice day for a few minutes and think a beta compares to an alpha.

I'll just say that having owned NF ATACR, Tangent Theta, Zero Compromise (and many others), my experience/opinion is that ATACR is not in the same tier in terms of performance. That doesn't mean the ATACR is 'bad' by any means, and the pricing of ATACRs on the secondary market can provide quite a bit of value.

Personally, I prefer the overall package of the ZCO to the Tangent, but there are areas that the Tangent out performs the ZCO, and both TT/ZCO are a step above ATACR to me.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I had a 7-35 ATACR for about 2 weeks before selling it and buying a TT. My Minox ZP5 was much better in mirage than the NF and aside from tracking and reticle design, that is MY most important factor in selecting a scope. The ZCO is the only scope on the market that is a true peer of the TT and i think if someone liked one, they'd like the other just as much. I know i would have been just as happy with buying a ZCO, but i love the turret on this TT. With that said, i want a 4-20 ZCO for one of my crossover rifles.

BLKWLFK9 said:

Agreed.

I had a 7-35 ATACR for about 2 weeks before selling it and buying a TT. My Minox ZP5 was much better in mirage than the NF and aside from tracking and reticle design, that is MY most important factor in selecting a scope. The ZCO is the only scope on the market that is a true peer of the TT and i think if someone liked one, they'd like the other just as much. I know i would have been just as happy with buying a ZCO, but i love the turret on this TT. With that said, i want a 4-20 ZCO for one of my crossover rifles.

Click to expand...

The 4-20 is where it's at IMO. I've got the 4-20 & the 5-27 for reference.

BreisV said:

However, my take on rifle scope glass is this: if I have to break out color charts and spend hours comparing the two to discern a difference, then functionally it makes no difference.

Click to expand...

That’s a good way to put it since I’m one of the people who preferred the atacr 7-35 to the zco 4-20 but then again, my eyesight is not perfect by any means. I owned a zp5 for a good year before getting the atacr because i preferred the turrets and mil-c reticle, and even between those two, i could not tell a real difference in optical quality. I’m not using the atacr to shoot at first light, last light, middle of the night or through the thickest of the iraqi mirage to snipe bad guys at 1700 yards.. just local matches here and there and recreational shooting. Fits my needs just fine. I guess if you’re a top level competitor and you need every possible ounce of advantage and spending an extra grand or two in optics makes you feel you got that advantage.. great! Best thing about shooting is as long as you’re happy with your gear that’s all that matters. Funny how some people get upset that you’re happy with equipment they consider sub-par

Observation:

Not aimed at anybody in particular here... but I've noticed a bit of a trend kicking around the Hide lately where if someone doesn't dig an optic as much as someone else (especially if it's a newer and/or more expensive model), they get accused of:

(A) not knowing how to setup a diopter correctly,

(B) not being enough of an optics aficionado to know what to look for or what they're looking at, or

(C) can't have a valid opinion due to not having enough experience mounting it up and running it in different conditions/matches/IRL/etc.

More exclusive/expensive/newer doesn't always equal better.

Paying ~300% more for something that's ~2% better is either: "just what it costs to have the best" or "not worth it"... both opinions are fine.

(FWIW, I've bought and sent back a Kahles, NF, TT and a ZCO... and am still using a Razor, a G2, not even the new one )

I think the OP's critique of the TT is fair and an interesting point. Maybe sticking with a 7-35 that you're comfortable with is the priority. And there's a lot of subjective preference between good and top-tier scopes. There's undisputable facts like light transmission, FOV and DOF and but there's a large subjective side as well such as reticle preference and feel. The incremental improvements between a $5k and $3k scope might not be worth the upgrade or provide value for someone already comfortable with what they have.

orkan said:

I don't say all of this to irritate you

Click to expand...

Funniest thing I’ve read all day.

orkan said:

I sell TT's

Click to expand...

You don’t say.

Somewhere there is an angry Canadian freaking out reading this thread from his vpn lol

@Perceptiv I believe was our angry Canadian TT warrior… I see he’s banned now

HenryTheAce said:

@Perceptiv I believe was our angry Canadian TT warrior… I see he’s banned now

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it was just one of @orkan 's burner accounts to troll the TT haters lol

Huskydriver said:

Pretty sure it was just one of @orkan 's burner accounts to troll the TT haters lol

Click to expand...

@orkan would never claim to be a Canadian, guys a full blooded thoroughbred American.