IOR has clearly proven that 40mm tubes are currently the pinnacle in optical performance. Wait until they release their new and improved 52mm tube version next year 
Rifle Scopes ZCO Hunter scope at the IWA event
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
Because I hate buying proprietary or dedicated mounts that won't work with 98% of my other scopes. I do not see the advantage that 36mm is supposed to give compared to other 34mm designs, if someone could identify what that advantage is then please do (and if you tell me it's for better edge to edge sharpness at max elevation I have evidence to prove otherwise, and if you tell me because it offers more travel then, again, I have evidence to prove otherwise). Understand this is simply personal preference, sometimes I swap my scopes around and my mounts around to different rifles. It's like going over to a friends house to play Legos and I bring Megabloks, eveyone else brought Legos, but I can't play with them cause I have some stupid proprietary brand.
PS - I have the same issue with Leupold's 35mm tube with their Mark 5, the 35mm tube does nothing for the scope except make it a pain for those who like to swap stuff around.
As far as I know, the biggest advantage is tube thickness which allows for a thicker tube wall which in turn allows for a more durable optic.
Even with the 36mm tube, the 8-40 Zco can flex a ton if you reach out onto the bell a bit and press down. Obviously this is due to the length. The shorter the optic the less this happens and the tube thickness helps.
IOR has clearly proven that 40mm tubes are currently the pinnacle in optical performance. Wait until they release their new and improved 52mm tube version next year
IOR’s use for a large 40mm tube is not the same reason ZCO, TT and Hensoldt 36mm tube. I know you meant this in fun but it will be brought up.
That has been of interest to me as well, but I think exit pupil has more to play with eyebox than does a larger tube diameter, I know @koshkin has delved into this a bit with previous videos but I don't remember anything conclusive coming out of larger tubes with relation to eyebox.
Larger tubes do not directly correlate to the eyebox in any way I can think of. In principle, a larger tube allows for more real estate inside the scope, which in some situations gives you design options that MAY help with eyebox. In practice, that's me hedging because I have not really looked at how they do the design on the inside.
Looking through the thread, a few interesting things came up. Keep in mind that I did not go to IWA and I have no insight whatsoever into ZCO's planning or design process.
On 36mm tube:
-there are a couple of possible reasons why they are sticking with that. The most likely is just continuity and marketing. Keeping all of their tubes the same size is a consistent marketing message. I understand that people do not like different mounts. Personally, I could not care less about the mounts. I have a couple of sets of 36mm rings that I use when I need to play with 36mm scopes and I do not find that to be a major inconvenience. To each his own.
-The aesthetic of the scope looks a little different than that of their tactical scope, so it is entirely possible that this is a start of a new line of hunting scopes where they need the tube for some of the higher magnification models.
Now, to be fair, for a hunting scope I would prefer a smaller tube, but it is not a deal breaker. I think TT has the right approach to this where their TT315M and TT315H are 30mm, while the original 315P and 525P are 34mm.
On other 36mm scopes: that does not seem to be catching on a whole lot since Zeiss has moved back to smaller tubes with their V8 scopes (and frankly, the new V8 scopes look better than the old ones to me).
On the other hand, the new TT 7-35x56 is 36mm, so I do not think 36mm is going away any time soon. To re-iterate: if the design benefits from it, I have no problem with it.
On the magnification range: I like the 1.7-12x range. It is near perfect for a general purpose hunting scope that might be used on its own or with a clip-on. I would probably prefer it with a 40-ish mm objective, personally, but that really depends on what other models they are planning.
The spec sheet refers to both 1st and 2nd focal planes. I would guess that means there will be both FFP and SFP models. Dual focal plane is usually called out differently.
That having been said, I sorta take ZCO spec releases with a grain of salt. They still have not fixed their FOV spec that has been wrong from the very beginning. It is a little bit narrower than they state.
With this scope, they are claiming exit pupil of 29mm on 1.7x. Whoever put together the spec table just divided 50mm by 1.7 That is not how exit pupil works on low power with EVERY scope on the market today.
Whoever put that specsheet together wasn't really paying attention, so I do not know what other mistakes are in there.
That aside, I am sure it is going to be a nice scope. I hope they bring some version of it to the US.
ILya
Greatly appreciated
Its not? Is there some other relationship for calculating exit pupil on a low power scope?
He means on any scope at low power. It basically doesn’t apply at all once an erector ratio gets past 3x or 4x. My favorite example is Nightforce - look at their specs for exit pupils at 2.5x on both the 2.5-10x42 NXS and 2.5-20x50 NX8. The smaller objective scope absolutely smokes the 50mm NX8 in this regard and as such has a much more friendly eyebox for awkward shooting positions. I’ve had both, still have an NXS on my primary hunting rifle. It’s worlds easier to get behind quickly. It’s not talked about enough IMO.
That calculation usually works on higher magnifications. On lower magnifications, objective diameter does not limit the entrance pupil, so it does not work that way. If you look at various riflescope specs (accurately written ones), you will note that on lowest magnification it is never objective diameter divided by magnification.
ILya
Thank you so much for the reply. Appreciate it
You are talking like 28 ounces is light. Considering the mag range and use case, this is not a lightweight scope. I don't see what 36mm gives you here that 34mm doesn't.
One way around that, get more zcos lol. Idk I just have a hard time with the idea that spending 200 on a set of rings that work with your $3800 scope is a problemBecause I hate buying proprietary or dedicated mounts that won't work with 98% of my other scopes. I do not see the advantage that 36mm is supposed to give compared to other 34mm designs, if someone could identify what that advantage is then please do (and if you tell me it's for better edge to edge sharpness at max elevation I have evidence to prove otherwise, and if you tell me because it offers more travel then, again, I have evidence to prove otherwise). Understand this is simply personal preference, sometimes I swap my scopes around and my mounts around to different rifles. It's like going over to a friends house to play Legos and I bring Megabloks, eveyone else brought Legos, but I can't play with them cause I have some stupid proprietary brand.
PS - I have the same issue with Leupold's 35mm tube with their Mark 5, the 35mm tube does nothing for the scope except make it a pain for those who like to swap stuff around.
28oz is light for a for a premium FFP scope, it’s nearly the same weight as a TT315M. I don’t think any of the premium manufacturers are going for the lightest weight you can achieve.
Also it looks like they did make this scope long enough to better fit on a Long Action setup where the ZC420 might be too short.
Durability. And 28oz is plenty light. You’ll stay under 10lbs.
A lighter optic is a speciality optic, just like a rifle under 6lbs without optic is a speciality rifle.
You could give this forum $5 in quarters and they’d ask why it’s not pennies.
To be something of a contrarian here, I kinda like it when new product info is posted and produces lively debate. I do occasional consulting for different riflescope manufacturers and I sorta assume that any new product will generate both positive and negative response.
Human nature is such that people with a negative reaction to a new introduction will typically be more vocal then the ones who liked it. The same human nature when filtered through a prism of a highly opinionated person (looking in the mirror...) will frequently come through a little abrasive.
That's not a bad thing because that stimulates discussion and often things that I did not think of during the design phase will come out. All of that goes into consideration on the next product and ultimately results in something better. To be fair, some of the complaints are silly, while others are perfectly reasonable. I'd rather have both, than no feedback at all.
Once again, to be clear: I have absolutely nothing to do with ZCO, so this is just general commentary. Now, some riflescope manufacturers view any and all feedback that is less than glowing as a personal affront, but most are adult enough to see it as a generally good thing.
I can tell flat out you that many of them read these threads and pay attention.
ILya
If they had reticles I liked I might, but already there is too much competition in this area that I’m not sure a reticle would do it for me at this point.
It’s not about the money (to a point), it’s about the convenience. With a ZCO 4-20x50 I could use it on a hunter with low rings, but then I want to use it on an AI with a beefy mount and then I want to use it on an AR with a cantilevered mount. You’re saying I have to buy three different mounting options for just one scope when I already have plenty of 34mm options that fit all the other scopes and work just fine. Granted, not everyone is like me and plays musical chairs with their scopes.
That all goes without saying. But complaining about 28oz and thinking the 36mm tube is somehow affecting that.....when comparable Swaro optics are less than 5oz lighter.....is not stimulating discussion.
You have to go down to 1" tubes and other such things to get into the sub 20oz.
It would be far wiser to educate people on this, than asking for stimulating conversations on things that don't actually matter.
For reference for anyone interested:
You'll only be a 10oz heavier than this with this ZCO. And even less if you go to a different Swaro.
This is a full stainless action without anything like open ejection or other relief cuts for weight.
You'll only be a 10oz heavier than this with this ZCO. And even less if you go to a different Swaro.
This is a full stainless action without anything like open ejection or other relief cuts for weight.
I would love to see a 1-8 or 1-10 optic from ZCO with a 36 mm tube and large eye box.
Beautiful rifle! But “Only” 10 oz? Snipers Hide is not the target market for this scope. What will this 10 oz heavier 1.7-12 capped turret scope do they say the Swaro you have won’t for a hunter? Durability, sure. But I have a 20 oz 2.5-10 NXS on my primary hunting rifle. What’s it do that that can’t?
The rifle you posted is heavy in the hunting world. I consider my 8 lb 280AI with the NXS and a suppressor heavy.
I just don’t see the appeal to any one segment of shooters. If you’re ok with the weight it’s generally for a longer range rifle. But then we have 1.7-12 and capped turrets.
On this forum, we have been begging for options in the mid range/lightweight class for years. Things are finally starting to come around with optics like the March 1.5-15. Everyone's use case is different, but on a hunting rifle, I absolutely except to sacrifice a certain amount of durability for weight. Let's be honest, we do that when weighing those two factors against each other on almost any other product we buy. In the case of the March, I am sure the sacrifice will show up somewhere, but for those that want a lightweight/midrange scope, most are willing to live with other trade-offs.
I never imagined me thinking 28oz was not light for a hunting setup would be controversial. I am certain if I make that statement on a hunting forum, the responses change drastically. Vortex makes a 4.5-22 FFP Razor Light hunter that weighs 21.7 ounces....
If I wanted to play up near the 28-30oz world for a hunting scope, well, I have a ton of options that already exist in the marketplace. Once you get down under 25 ounces is where things dry up. Some people want to trek for miles with their combo and the typical "go to the gym" argument is simply not the answer if you are also packing in other gear as well, or for like some of us, actually running with the damn thing.
The bottom line is I think there is a small percentage of folks on this forum looking for a particular setup that would fill a hole in the marketplace that has existed for years. While I am sure this will be fine scope, I don't think the lightweight hunting void is the one it will fill. I talked to Jeff @ ZCO at SHOT show and checked out the optics. I really like their new reticle. It may just be that the one compromise Zero Compromise is unwilling to make is durability for weight, and while understandable, just simply means it will not meet the needs I have for the optic. And that's OK, its clear there is plenty of interest from others in it's current form.
That's your opinion. I guess there are different flavors of hunting. Maybe 10 lbs is a good target down in TX. For the hunting I do (10k+ elevation wilderness elk hunting in CO), I shoot for under 8 lbs. Every ounce counts when you are literally climbing mountains with the rifle strapped to your back.
That massive tube may indeed be more durable, but to me it is not worth the 10oz penalty over a Swarovski Z6, which has never failed me.
This coming from a ZCO fan. Not saying they aren't good scopes, just wishing they would come out with something tailored to my specific brand of hunting.
I agree with @ChrisAU and @Burdy a capped 12x scope doesn't need the weight or bulk of this one. I have 2 hunting rifles a 20" barreled 6.5cm with a nxs 2.5-10x42 and a 24" 300wsm with a NX8 2.5-20. I've ran multiple different scopes before settling on those.
I know it's subjective, but I tried the ATACR 4-16x42 and hated the size and weight on my 20" rifle. Took away the balance and feel.
I was really hoping that we would get a upgraded version of the Tangent TT315H with a better reticle.
I know it's subjective, but I tried the ATACR 4-16x42 and hated the size and weight on my 20" rifle. Took away the balance and feel.
I was really hoping that we would get a upgraded version of the Tangent TT315H with a better reticle.
I did not ask for stimulating conversation or anything else.
You were complaining that people on this forum are never happy (I am paraphrasing) and find fault with everything. I merely pointed out that bitching about minute issues, while annoying, is still potentially useful.
Not sure what Swaro has to do with any of this.
ILya
Last edited:
The most important thing is still missing. What will the reticle look like? That is more important than a few ounces.
Good luck talking to a bunch of hunters how a few ounces won't make a difference. I know, I used to be one of those stubborn hunters who thought SFP and MOA was the end all be all of optical excellence. It's very hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
What doesn't matter for you may matter a great deal for someone else, education or not.
I’m very surprised at the 36mm. This could have even been 30mm. I wonder if they’re just using 36mm to keep things simple and the same via economies of scale and keep the cost down.
Keep in mind it was stated in the OP that this is strictly a European design and will not be made available to the states in its current form, I do not think a 36mm scope aimed at hunting market will do so great over here. US shooters are a fickle bunch, it will get sales for sure but not like a 30mm tube ZCO Hunter model would. The weight is more than I prefer for this mag range but not horrible, heck it’s not much more than the Leupold 2-10x30 and offers a greater mag range and objective and to be honest, if I’m going to do an odd tube size in an MPVO I’d rather do 36mm vs 35mm. My biggest question is reticle, I’m not the biggest fan of ZCO’s existing reticle lineup but keep holding out for hope that they’ll get better ne I like.
My deepest apologies for not chiming in much much sooner in this thread. I was attending and shooting the PRS match in Idaho and should have addressed this during one of my evenings.
The new ZCO Hunter has been in development with our Austrian partners for some time now. It has been primarily developed for the European market but given enough interest, we could of course bring it here to the U.S.
The scope shown at IWA is still a pre-production optic to continue doing research and development with. By no means are the given specs on the sheet 100% solid at this time, some stuff may change.
As we further the development on this new scope we will make more information available for all customers world-wide. As with any new release there are always a lot of questions. I don't have the answer to everything just yet because the final design on the scope hasn't been solidified and ready to move into full production.
Again I apologize for not making a post much sooner. I dropped the ball on that.
Regarding an optic specific to the U.S. market, those ideas are still under more development within our design team.
The new ZCO Hunter has been in development with our Austrian partners for some time now. It has been primarily developed for the European market but given enough interest, we could of course bring it here to the U.S.
The scope shown at IWA is still a pre-production optic to continue doing research and development with. By no means are the given specs on the sheet 100% solid at this time, some stuff may change.
As we further the development on this new scope we will make more information available for all customers world-wide. As with any new release there are always a lot of questions. I don't have the answer to everything just yet because the final design on the scope hasn't been solidified and ready to move into full production.
Again I apologize for not making a post much sooner. I dropped the ball on that.
Regarding an optic specific to the U.S. market, those ideas are still under more development within our design team.
Thanks for saying engaged. I think we all want to see ZCO succeed.
Cant wait for reviews on the new ZCO with off set red dot.
Obviously im joking and excited for the better US version.
The 36mm tube on a 12x scope is interesting, or puzzling......but regardless, I'm SUPER stoked that ZCO is releasing new products. Maybe that 36mm is just to keep manufacturing costs down or something.....Idk......but I'm still hopeful for a 34mm (or hell...even 30) on the USA releases. Either way, thanks for the info @CSTactical and getting out ahead of the release. Super pumped. So S T O K E D 
Is the roughly 7x magnification going to be applied across all the new scopes or is that up in the air as well?
That's not an absolute thing at all, so up to the design team to use given the criteria for the scope.
The exciting thing is they have headed down the path of a hunting design. 36mm allows for more travel in turrets, and simply more space/size to optimize lenses. I will comment that I don't need a big fin on the mag ring on a hunting scope. Their current mag ring on the US scopes is just right in my opinion. At 7x erector, I'll take a 2.6-18x.
NEW Zero Compromise ZC Hunter 1.7-12x50 Riflescope -
Zero Compromize ZC Hunter 1.7-12x50 Riflescope. Price. Zero Compromise Optics released their first ever allround and hunting focused riflescope at IWA.
www.thefirearmblog.com There are 30mm tube optics that are popular with LR hunters (NXS, NX8, LRHS, TT315M to name a few) that will take anything anyone would be LR hunting with well beyond 1000 yards on a 0MOA base. The additional travel of a 36mm tube on a hunting scope is less than worthless.
Well that’s a good point but as stated there is more to just travel. More surface area for lenses makes optical design easier/better, more forgiving etc.
Unless the thickness of the tube negates the internal diameter. For example, let's say mfr X has a 34mm tube and uses 4mm thick walls which gives internal diameter (ID) of 26mm, and let's say ZCO uses 5mm thick walls for greater rigidity with their 36mm tube. Both designs still yield an ID of 26mm.
There is another consideration with the concept of "crossover" scopes, the idea being that a crossover scope could be used adequately for hunting as well as for dynamic long range shooting. For a dedicated "Hunter" oriented scope, yes, it makes sense to try and "trim" it down to squeeze every ounce off while maintaining enough strength to withstand the abuse of hunting situations, but for crossover designs I feel there is a little more wiggle room for size and weight (although with the increasing popularity of thermal clipons a scope that is under 13" would be better suited). If we get hung up with the fact that ZCO has labelled this "Hunter" and marketing as such is what might be throwing some off as we tend to automatically think Hunter = lighter weight and smaller tube; however, keep in mind this is a ZCO Austria release and not yet a ZCO USA release, as Richard and Nick have mentioned there is time for ZCO USA to reconsider some design criteria and they are likely following this thread closely to understand what the market wants and what the market is willing to accept.
I've already expressed why 36mm tubes annoy me, but that is my issue, so I can let that go. If the current specs hold true, this is going to be a 1.7-12x50 FFP scope with a 36mm tube at 13.39 inches long and 28.2 oz, to be honest, that is impressive they got the scope that light (granted it has those dinky capped turrets so a lot will depend on how "good" those turrets are). In comparison the TT315M is a 3-15x50 with 30mm tube at 13.8" long and weighs 27.7 oz. That means the ZCO with a 7x erecter and 36mm tube weighs just a 1/2 ounce more than the TT with 5x erector and 30mm tube.
The only other player with mag range anything close is the new March FFP 1.5-15x42 with 34mm tube, but this is a 10x erector scope that is only 10.6" long so it remains to be seen how finicky it might be as compared to something like this ZCO.
Last edited:
