Got hands on it yesterday. I liked the DMR reticle. I didn’t really get to focus on it much since I was pressed for time. I’ll go back tomorrow to give it more time.
- Thread starter Hoody2shoes
- Start date
Just a few items. First, someone earlier in this thread posted there are those that say they are interested in a product but never bother to buy. I say I buy the product with very little fanfare. Second, I was hoping that ZCO would offer a simpler reticle. Not sure if these reticle choices are set in stone or not. The nice eye box would sure make this scope nice on my 75 year old eyes.
Maxwell
Maxwell
Currently there is that one prototype posted which is a revision of what I handles at Shot Show, give them a little time to shake everything out and we will get a bunch of them for hide members
I'll be putting one on a on that new Primary Weapon Systems URX personallyRichard@CST
Ofc: 916-670-1103x2
Cell: 916-628-3490
cstactical.com
@richardatcstactical
I mean as in a longer objective bell length, which most LPVOs do not have.
There is no such thing as a non-compact LPVO, and honestly I don't care where you're trying to go here with this
Really? So because you saw it popped up here on the Hide in the last maybe 2-3 years, it's now somehow a defined thing? It has not been around in use for any long length of time, common use or otherwise, and just because you support the idea of it as a term does not make it so in the industry.
No one really defined them, but I'm going to send that one back at you, as you often like to push definitions and ideas here as if yours in any more correct, or as if just because it's talked about here on the hide, it must be the general belief outside of this arena.
As for Leupold and comments in general here, you completely circumvented my point earlier, so let me reiterate it... "often times the most vocal on forums are also often the minority and not the majority. They also don't speak for all end-users in general, but a niche group that granted while their needs are not necessarily being fully met by the available market options, that's due to the reality that it's a small subset and not enough market capture to cover doing what they're requesting, especially if it's a newer company looking to grab a reasonable size market share with new products."
It's all fine and well to put out criticism and ideas, but you think just because it gets put out there that companies are somehow behest to your suggestions, and if not taken beolden to you for explaining why. Where is it said anywhere that ZCO or any company needs to make any statement in regards to addressing "a result" of what was ever is discussed here? When they don't, you then do what you did immediately following in this threas where you put out some wonky theorem to try and steer the audience towards a false conclusion, in an attempt to try and get some prescribed repsonse from the company that would kowtow to your inquiry and force an explanation to dismiss your completely erroneous assumptions. But you just keep doing you. I'm sure your fan club will show up here shortly to try an exhonerate you...
Yes and no. I would say the relationship of vocal minority vs silent majority is likely linearly correlated to educated vs uneducated buyers. That is not a slight on the latter. The fact of the matter is a huge majority of buyers of any category of product buy based upon advertisement, what their buddy said to buy, cost-to-budget ratio or their perception of the brand among other factors. The silent majority does not spend hours evaluating potential competition in the market or use-case vs feature set, let alone do in depth evaluations of specifications such as CA, FOV, exit pupil etc before making a purchase.
All this is to say if the vocal minority got their way, it likely wouldn't effect sales to the silent majority at all.
I've heard many times over the past 15 or so years in multiple product meetings across many categories of product that "the end user doesn't know what they need." I used to think that was ridiculous. You know, they were right, because the average end user has no idea what they need. This leaves us in a conundrum...you can either:
A.) speak up as a vocal (and hopefully educated) minority in hopes that the company has their ear to the ground
or
B.) you can stay silent and let a single product manager (with their own personal bias) decide how they want to build it
If I end up buying one, that's exactly what it's going on.Currently there is that one prototype posted which is a revision of what I handles at Shot Show, give them a little time to shake everything out and we will get a bunch of them for hide members
But it's UXR
I never said anything about the end user not knowing what they need, so you can stop with your attempt to spin something that was never there to begin with. I also never said anything about not being vocal. As to everything else, while yes, those are definitely contributing factors that I can wholeheartedly and professionally agree with, there are far more factors to brand recognition and adoption than just that. And, it absolutely does affect the silent majority, and there's an astronomical amount of research on that topic that validates it.
I never said you did.
Again, I never said you did. No one is mad at you, this was not a rebuttal post. You shouldn't read into my reply from a defensive position.
Hence my use of "among other factors"
In the example of this particular optic, would the silent majority not purchase if it weighed 7 less ounces or was a 2-12 instead of a 2-10? You are going to have a hard time convincing me of that. If we are talking about reticles, well, I don't think the ZCO buyers want an A4 or a duplex either, but that seems like a small and inexpensive option if the demand is there.
You absolutely tried to steer into that assumption. This isn't my first foray into forum behavior. As for the latter, perhaps I should have included you in the statement as to whether you need to be convinced of anything. You are so busy trying to sell an idea of what ZCO should do, but you have not considered their brand identity or actual consumer demand, just your own. In the end, the consumers will decide with their wallet, and I don't see ZCO suffering for it.
Listen, I admit that I am opinionated and have my bias’ and sometimes I stand on my soapbox maybe a bit too long, but your accusations toward me do not align with what I’ve tried to do for this community and advancements in sport optics in general. I happen to like ZCO and have promoted them on numerous occasions, but I’m also critical of certain areas, if you think that means I expect ZCO to do what I tell them then clearly you’re not paying attention.
I’ve taken a lot of criticism over the years and I can take yours too, I do not need a fan base to back me up, I’ve got thicker skin than that. You clearly have an axe to grind so grind away.
Or perhaps I know a little bit more about your past shenanigans than you think... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m flattered, didn’t realize you took such an interest in me. Like I said, it’s clear you don’t know me but have a serious axe to grind with me. We can just leave it at that.
What I don't understand is - this goes for all scope companies - if your reticles look bad on paper but great in real life, then why would you not show that in your promotional material?
Because just looking at the datasheet, I would assume that the lines are too thick on 10x for my taste.
Because just looking at the datasheet, I would assume that the lines are too thick on 10x for my taste.
Thanks for the info. Not exactly what I wanted to hear, but I will reserve judgment until I have one in hand…hopefully before too long! Really appreciate it, y’all have a good one.
-TSean
Hi Glassaholic,
I appreciate the commentary and good point on the thicker parts of the reticle. That said, there is a big gap between the “decently bright” existing style ZCO illumination and something that is actually bright like the ATACR 1-8, Schmidt flash dot or even the dot on the Vortex Razor Gen 2 1-6. The full power style is my preference for illumination period…but especially if the low end power is in the 1-2x range.
At any rate, like pretty much everything, I will just wait until I can buy and evaluate it myself on all counts. Everybody of course has their own tastes, preferences and experiences.
I was happy to have the note from CSTactical though to set my initial expectations on what style of illumination it is (wish that was spelled out in the info a bit better…maybe it is still being tweaked?).
Thanks again for the note and hope you get a live look at one too when they get released! Have a good one.
-TSean
Sorry that’s all the information I currently have, what’s discussed is the one current prototype made which is a tweaked version of the one I handled at Shot Show.
I hear you on the brighter illumination tech on some of the LPVO’s. A lot depends on reticle thickness and focal length both of which this scope has in its favor but until they are released it is hard to say how good. As Richard mentions, they just have the prototype, maybe by fall or early next year these will actually start shipping. ZCO is a good company who listens to and takes care of their customers so I feel pretty confident those interested in a 2-10x30 will be quite happy. I can see this scope doing quite well for not just gas gun application but also for night hunters using thermal clipons.
Played with it for a good amount of time today. The more I looked at it the more I fell in love with it. Really digging the DMR reticle. Can’t really give a fair assessment of the illumination since I’m color blind and anything less than aimpoint bright just doesn’t work for me.
Did they miss the home run by not going 3-15? Seems to me if your going to not have a 1x on the bottom your still going to be putting a dot on top. I would give up 2x and go to 3-15. I think the 3 would still work behind thermal clip ons.
Several reasons. One, it's extremely difficult to capture a relatively decent image, without making the edge to edge clarity and resolution look like garbage, which is no fault of the optic but caused by trying to capture it through a camera. Then, no matter what you do use in the background, people then want to argue on what to use there as well. Then, they get inundated with emails asking for the reticle without a backdrop as posted, wanting to see the reticle on every magnification level, all the while still not seeing the best picture possible because the camera simply cannot pick-up details the way the human eye does.
I understand all of that but putting a little effort into selling scopes and building a rig to take somewhat decent pictures should not be too much to ask for a scope manufacturer. Because you often don't really have the option to look through the scope before buying/ordering it at the gun store other than going to conventions. (at least here in Austria)
If you understood all of that, then you'd understand what you said after is not the case. It has nothing to do with effort, or for a lack of equipment. I use a Canon R6 Mk ii, and to capture the imagery you speak of, you simply cannot capture the same effect as the naked eye, period. I know, because myself and others for years have looked into and attempted to capture what you're asking without losing overall edge to edge clarity, resolution, and contrast. and it has thus been unsuccessful. ZCO is know for their clarity and resolution, and to put out anything less that negatively reflects that would do more harm than good with consumers who now defintitely aren't getting the best picture possible. It's a rather no win situation.
My point is, imho, that a bad foto shows more of how useable the reticle is than a graphic on white background. Because unless I see someone on the range that has a scope I am interested in I will most likely not have a chance to get to look through it before spending a few thousand euros.
And my point is, while they may capture a handful with a bad photo, they can lose far more with the same bad photo when it's for a premium optic.
As soon as they released into the wild I’m sure there will be pics of the reticles…in the wild. But, from what I can see the DMR and HCR are going to work great. I bet they won’t be obtrusive at all and their illumination will make you fast on target. Hopefully they are released sooner than later…cause I want a couple. Super versatile and likely to be ultra high quality, good form factor/ergonomics, with excellent customer service in the US. All a win in my book.
Depending where you are in Austria, I'm sure something might be arranged where you could swing by somewhere and look through one. You might try shooting ZCO an email asking.
Another option would be to overlay the reticle on top of a photo and adjust as required to get something 99.9% representative of real thing.
But doing so would open Pandora’s box on number of other things people could comment about
Another option would be to overlay the reticle on top of a photo and adjust as required to get something 99.9% representative of real thing.
But doing so would open Pandora’s box on number of other things people could comment about
It's not going to look like a 99.9% representation. And, then you're on the hook for the inevitable complaint(s) from person(s) that your graphic overlay (which is really what it is) doesn't look like what they see through their glass, and then the subsequent complaints to see it on an actual target at varying distances, magnifications, low light v daylight, every illumination setting, with nightvision, with different backgrounds, inverted in an F14 Tomcat... etc etc etc. Frankly, companies could bring the optic to the person, let them look through it themselves, and they would still complain that it wasn't in "actual field conditions, so they're not sold on it, blah blah blah..." Ask me how I know that.
What's those deets?
It will, if done properly.
The other issues you raised are what I alluded to with opening Pandora’s box.
Last edited:
Or…and stay with me….BOTH the schematic and through reticle
The schematic with and without measurement specs
Through the glass at top, bottom and at maybe 5x in this case at a minimum of 100y on a common relatable target (say a white ipsc with contrasted a-zone)…. Or like the vids OpticTrade EU does.
And include the disclaimer for the tards: optics viewed through internet images show mechanical distortion not present to the human eye in person
Done
The schematic with and without measurement specs
Through the glass at top, bottom and at maybe 5x in this case at a minimum of 100y on a common relatable target (say a white ipsc with contrasted a-zone)…. Or like the vids OpticTrade EU does.
And include the disclaimer for the tards: optics viewed through internet images show mechanical distortion not present to the human eye in person
Done
Basic idea yes.
Use real photo + reticle layer, bit of blending and transparency adjustment to adjust to what you actually see.
That's computer generated, and even then it's a poor representation.
It still comes out like a generated image, and people still complain it does not look the same as looking through the glass, because low and behold... it's not the same. I've done it, countless times. Your idea of 99.9% like the real thing, and the actual impression consumers get once they get behind the glass does not correlate. Again, those of us in the industry have been trying to figure out a solution, but nothing has presented other than everyone suggesting AI, and then we still end up with consumer complaints that the image isn't the same, and the subsequent requests like we just saw here even after we both said it would happen.
You're literally proving my point, lol. And the second you have to throw in a disclaimer, you present the next issue with consumer behavior and purchasing, creating a negative impression prior to purchase that affects their initial impression. There's a reason companies make that small print, and still try to avoid it wherever they can.
Add: I almost forgot, then there's the "that's not 5x, more like 4.3x" guy, who wants to argue target size in relation to mils on reticle, etc etc...
And to everyone here, you really need to think about the fact that while some might say those guys aren't a big deal, you can't please everyone, etc etc, that someone on the other end of e-mails, social media, forums, and all other touch points does in fact have to deal with them, and it pulls from their time to deal with the actual customer who they already have commitments to, all to try and please a relative few who many in fact have no intention or means of purchase. That's not a general pointing of fingers to anyone here either, just a simply truth about the matter.
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out, yes, those are from Horus; however, and this is in no way meant to throw any kind of shade at them, consider that the actual owner of Horus, Nightforce Optics, doesn't do the same thing with their reticle images.
I agree. It isn’t any better than the pic of the reticle on a white background, this is probably even less helpful cause it’s just distracting.
@Makinchips208 I've been working on trying to find a way to do it, but it's an unpaid side project, so it's been on the back burner. Ironically, and so everyone here knows, ZCO has talked about it on several occasions trying to get you guys that kind of stuff, and I have an idea that I'm going to try, but it requires a day with zero wind, and engineering something that ensures absolute zero movement between the camera and the optic, then using my app to remotely adjust the focus point in quadrants, and stitching it all together to hopefully remove any loss of edge to edge clarity, reticle clarity, and chromatic aberrations caused between the camera and the optic glass. We forget that our eyes are amazing at auto-focusing imagery and stitching it together in our super computer brains with the ultimate nature's algorithm. People often don't even have their ocular adjusted properly, so their eyes work even harder, but you don't notice anything initially until you're eyes fatigue throughout the day. The camera is less forgiving unfortunately.
That’s a cool idea! I know nothing about it except that it isn’t easily done.
Someone like @koshkin probably has knowledge of the subject.
IMHO...
My pro's;
Great build quality.
Durable?! Remains to be seen but it must be, right.
Compact.
Wide FOV.
Good eyebox.
Uncompromising magnification ratio/x5.
Great IQ.
One decent reticle.
Side focus and focuses as close as 8M. Very appreciated BTW.
Hopefully bright-ish illume.
My Con's;
Heavy-ish/ and 36mm tube. What was the reasoning behind this, just curious???
Ok not a ELR scope but I would like 2nd rev indicator or rev numbers under the turret, does this have either, because I shoot past 1000Y.
Razor LHT = 30mm, 5.5-22, 21.7 oz, and March 1-10 DFP shorty = 30mm, 17.8 oz, for comparison.
Tried 1-6's, 1-8's, 1-10's, 2.5-10's, 3-12's, and 2-12's, I can't abide 10x as top magnification anymore.
New ZCO has more Pro's than Con's by a lot though.
If lighter weight and a 2.2-13.2/ almost low 2x along with a little more X latitude, representing two of my most important wants, maybe I'd spend the money. Yeah I know you can't please everyone but I still want what I want.
Nope not buying a March 1.5-15 either, or a 3x-?, or a 4x-?.
Nah I'll keep slummin the 2-12's for now.
My pro's;
Great build quality.
Durable?! Remains to be seen but it must be, right.
Compact.
Wide FOV.
Good eyebox.
Uncompromising magnification ratio/x5.
Great IQ.
One decent reticle.
Side focus and focuses as close as 8M. Very appreciated BTW.
Hopefully bright-ish illume.
My Con's;
Heavy-ish/ and 36mm tube. What was the reasoning behind this, just curious???
Ok not a ELR scope but I would like 2nd rev indicator or rev numbers under the turret, does this have either, because I shoot past 1000Y.
Razor LHT = 30mm, 5.5-22, 21.7 oz, and March 1-10 DFP shorty = 30mm, 17.8 oz, for comparison.
Tried 1-6's, 1-8's, 1-10's, 2.5-10's, 3-12's, and 2-12's, I can't abide 10x as top magnification anymore.
New ZCO has more Pro's than Con's by a lot though.
If lighter weight and a 2.2-13.2/ almost low 2x along with a little more X latitude, representing two of my most important wants, maybe I'd spend the money. Yeah I know you can't please everyone but I still want what I want.
Nope not buying a March 1.5-15 either, or a 3x-?, or a 4x-?.
Nah I'll keep slummin the 2-12's for now.
36mm is what ZCO's are standardized on
It's difficult to realistically have a premium optic overall and get that weight to those numbers without some exotic materials ($$$$$) or a possible loss of structural integrity.
Theoretically a 5x erector scope at 10x will gather more light and can have a higher IQ to a comparable 10x erector scope with a tiny exit pupil.
How much ight gets into a scope is mostly a function of the objective lens diameter. It does not have a ton to do with the erector ratio, especially on higher magnifications. Image quality is definitely easier to get with a lower mag ratio, but a far as the amount of light goes, that is incorrect.
On scope weight: if they were starting up from scratch with a 2-10x30, they could make it quite a bit lighter without any serious trouble or exotic materials or loss of structural integrity. That's pretty much nonsense.
The reason it weighs what it weighs is that they are using the same eyepiece, erector, etc as they do on their higher mag scopes. Only the objective lens part is truly new. Leupold is doing the same exact thing with the 2-10x30 Mark 5HD: reusing existing pieces. That is what makes it heavy. If they were starting from scratch, they would be able to make it a lot lighter than if they are reusing systems never designed to be light. However, the price of the scope would have to reflect all the hours of engineering. I suspect that they are correct in choosing to keep the developmet costs down.
ILya
Ilya once again stating the obvious… but from a very informed perspective! Thanks, Ilya.
I was referring to the exit pupil on similar scopes, one being a 5x erector and the other a 10x erector
I didn't say it was impossible, I said it can be difficult. But I do not know if this design was completely made from scratch or a variation odf their current design since it is using the same eyepiece design and erector of their higher mag scopes.
Smaller companies tend to use and share proven equations that work, larger companies may have gov contracts with sky high R&D and thousands of employees at their will. I look at what Sig Sauer USA is doing as an example in the firearm world in general.
Is it heavier but coming to the market in a short time? Yes! Could they have started from scratch and made a lighter overall setup? Yes, but when would it launch? 2026?
-Richard
Yes and also agreeing with what I posted if you missed it, - Richard
