Next scope purchase (ATACR, ZCO, DMR) Thoughts??? Feedback

[mjwilcox38]

I am looking to buy another scope. Scope will be for steel matches and some hunting. I am considering a 5,25 ATACR, Bushnell DMR321, or a ZCO 420.
I would like to know if someone has looked through a ATACR and a Bushnell DMR and can tell me if the ATACR is worth 1000 more dollars.
I would also like to konw if someone has looked through an ATACR and NCO and can tell me if the ZCO is worth 1000 more dollars.
I would like to know visually, I can read about specs and features. I am more concerned with image. Spotting misses, reading mirage. Stuff along those lines. And Parallax, I hate a scope with Parallax issues. I have SB PM, Razors, Zeiss V4 and V6 it that helps to refer above scopes to any of those for examples on visual, glass, clarity, parallax.

I am rounding to 1000 dollars so please do not correct me on the price, I have looked up each price.

 

[alfmoonspace]

Worth more is completely subjective at this point (DMR - NF - ZCO). All are excellent scopes that will help you see what you want to hit.

ZCO optically is superior than the other two but is it worth more, only you can decide that.

I have several DMR III - they are amazing for that price category. ATACR is getting long in the tooth.

 

[mjwilcox38]

Worth more is completely subjective at this point (DMR - NF - ZCO). All are excellent scopes that will help you see what you want to hit.

ZCO optically is superior than the other two but is it worth more, only you can decide that.

I have several DMR III - they are amazing for that price category. ATACR is getting long in the tooth.

So optically do you think the DMR and ATACR are close

 

[alfmoonspace]

They are close enough for me. If someone had them at the same price though, I would pick the ATACR

 

[mjwilcox38]

They are close enough for me. If someone had them at the same price though, I would pick the ATACR

im curious if the atacr 420 is better visually than the 525

 

[NiteQwill]

Go ZCO

 

[Tcorb734]

Best practice is for you to check them out in the field. I went to cabelas and looked across the store at the animals on the other side of the store. It helped me see the difference between different scopes.

 

[GeoDude]

You can find a used zco for around 3k on the hide. Just try to do f2f or use a gun escrow service. Go to a match and look through different scopes. Zco is nice and is easy to get behind. It all just depends how much cheese you have and how much you’ll shoot.

 

[regency]

I've had/have every brand of scope there is. ZCO and Tangent are all I'm buying from now on

 

[Jefe's Dope]

ZCO. If you want to save some money look at the Gen III Razor.

There's some complaints about the glass on the ATACR on the 5-25. Step up to the 7-35 if that's the route you want to go.

I've had the advantage of being able to handle and look through all three. All three (ZCO, Razor, ATACR 7-35) and they are all very good and really comes down to which reticle you want. The Razor really is impressive at its street price but at its MSRP, I'd go w/ the ZCO. My current scopes are a ZCO 5-27 and a Nightforce 4-32 NX8 for reference.

 

[hafejd30]

I have ZCO 527 and have owned all atacr except 5-25. The 5-25 is reported as the worst glass of the atacr line. The 4-20 atacr was decent but the 7-35 has better glass.

The 527 vs the atacr 7-35 was closer. But ZCO edges it out. Especially in low light. It also has a dial illumination which I prefer and a non rotating ocular compared to the NF.

Of your lineup I recommend the ZCO. I’d skip the 5-25 atacr all together

I found with my 4-16 and 4-20 I wanted more magnification for long range shooting and identifying deer.

Here’s a comparison in low light I did between my NF and ZCO

ZCO527 vs NF ATACR 7-35 vs Arken EP5- (Last Light Comparison)

First, Im not an optics snob. Reliability is my #1 concern. But I have wondered what my 527, 735 and EP5 would look like against each other at last light. Both the 735 and 527 have been used for the same application. Even though it’s mounted on a Vudoo here Primary use for my high end optics is...

www.snipershide.com

 

[Herb Stoner]

I have a ZCO 527 and you can’t go wrong with one. I also have a Kahles 525 with LSW and really like that feature - wish I could get it on a ZCO.

As others said, look through them and check out the different reticle options - very much a personal preference.

 

[FuhQ]

I am looking to buy another scope. Scope will be for steel matches and some hunting. I am considering a 5,25 ATACR, Bushnell DMR321, or a ZCO 420.
I would like to know if someone has looked through a ATACR and a Bushnell DMR and can tell me if the ATACR is worth 1000 more dollars.
I would also like to konw if someone has looked through an ATACR and NCO and can tell me if the ZCO is worth 1000 more dollars.
I would like to know visually, I can read about specs and features. I am more concerned with image. Spotting misses, reading mirage. Stuff along those lines. And Parallax, I hate a scope with Parallax issues. I have SB PM, Razors, Zeiss V4 and V6 it that helps to refer above scopes to any of those for examples on visual, glass, clarity, parallax.

I am rounding to 1000 dollars so please do not correct me on the price, I have looked up each price.

ZCO 527, Zeiss S3 or S5, Kahles K328i or K624i SKMR4, NF ATACR F1 5-25 MIL-XT are all good options.

 

[oldrifleman]

Just replaced a few NF ATCAR (7-35) with ZCO as I prefer their glass and their “X” reticles. My Night Force scopes have been bulletproof. I can’t talk about their service as I never needed it. If night force, the 7-35 has better glass. In ZCO I would go 527 ( I have several 840s but the use case does match your need).

 

[Islas82]

When buying NF a big chunk of the money goes to paying for the NF brand. NF is not worth what they’re asking for. That being said they’re good scopes I have owned a 7-35 and a 4-16 and really liked both. The ZCO is just better and worth it. Better optics, better features, and better reticles. I have own a 420 and a couple 427s I think that if you’re looking for the low end magnification you can’t go wrong with a 420. Out of all the scopes I have own the ZCO has had the best true to dial parallax.

 

[hafejd30]

When buying NF a big chunk of the money goes to paying for the NF brand. NF is not worth what they’re asking for. That being said they’re good scopes I have owned a 7-35 and a 4-16 and really liked both. The ZCO is just better and worth it. Better optics, better features, and better reticles. I have own a 420 and a couple 427s I think that if you’re looking for the low end magnification you can’t go wrong with a 420. Out of all the scopes I have own the ZCO has had the best true to dial parallax.

I wouldn’t say NF isn’t worth it. It’s probably better worded that they are worth what you can buy them in the PX for. Compared side by side I wouldn’t have an issue paying $2700 for another 7-35 with MIL XT.

That said I would only by the ZCO again from the px as well. Only because I really like the scope but if we’re comparing the many NF ATACR 7-35 in the px at $2700 vs a new ZCO at over $4000 I personally don’t feel the NF gives up enough to justify that

Now if you can live with a used ZCO then it’s more like $2700 vs $3200. Which at that point comes down to preferences like the reticle. At those price points I believe the ZCO is the better option

If we’re talking new vs new then ZCO gets my money. But I don’t see myself dishing out $4000 + on one

I know….I’m leaking my “poor” everywhere

 

[alfmoonspace]

This ^.

Also, I’ve told many to check your vision before you ditch scopes. Correcting vision/setting the scope up right can save you $$$.

 

[hafejd30]

Just to note as well the NF parallax is like 300 yards off on the dial. Doesn’t bother me but can see especially in a match setting where it may make a difference as the NF is more finicky on parallax. The ZCO seems to have a wider range in comparison where you won’t be fiddling with it as often. If one has sensitive eyes or gets strained easily then ZCO may be a better option

The NF is older technology compared to the ZCO. To my knowledge after owning the more recent 4-20 atacr I don’t believe anything has changed. The ZCO 4-20 often gets touted as one of the best scopes on the market as far as clarity and overall optics are concerned

 

[Islas82]

I wouldn’t say NF isn’t worth it. It’s probably better worded that they are worth what you can buy them in the PX for. Compared side by side I wouldn’t have an issue paying $2700 for another 7-35 with MIL XT.

That said I would only by the ZCO again from the px as well. Only because I really like the scope but if we’re comparing the many NF ATACR 7-35 in the px at $2700 vs a new ZCO at over $4000 I personally don’t feel the NF gives up enough to justify that

Now if you can live with a used ZCO then it’s more like $2700 vs $3200. Which at that point comes down to preferences like the reticle. At those price points I believe the ZCO is the better option

If we’re talking new vs new then ZCO gets my money. But I don’t see myself dishing out $4000 + on one

I know….I’m leaking my “poor” everywhere

Agreed. What I meant to say retail value is not worth it. Besides the PX you can also check Eurooptic’s demo inventory.

 

[xxflyingturtlexx]

I wouldn’t say NF isn’t worth it. It’s probably better worded that they are worth what you can buy them in the PX for. Compared side by side I wouldn’t have an issue paying $2700 for another 7-35 with MIL XT.

That said I would only by the ZCO again from the px as well. Only because I really like the scope but if we’re comparing the many NF ATACR 7-35 in the px at $2700 vs a new ZCO at over $4000 I personally don’t feel the NF gives up enough to justify that

Now if you can live with a used ZCO then it’s more like $2700 vs $3200. Which at that point comes down to preferences like the reticle. At those price points I believe the ZCO is the better option

If we’re talking new vs new then ZCO gets my money. But I don’t see myself dishing out $4000 + on one

I know….I’m leaking my “poor” everywhere

You forgot to mention the uterus reticle

 

[Islas82]

You forgot to mention the uterus reticle

Not their finest moment.

 

[oldrifleman]

Not their finest moment.

Hey, that wad the first ZCO I bought ( it was used and the price was right and my brain was not even going there).

 

[mjwilcox38]

Just to note as well the NF parallax is like 300 yards off on the dial. Doesn’t bother me but can see especially in a match setting where it may make a difference as the NF is more finicky on parallax. The ZCO seems to have a wider range in comparison where you won’t be fiddling with it as often. If one has sensitive eyes or gets strained easily then ZCO may be a better option

The NF is older technology compared to the ZCO. To my knowledge after owning the more recent 4-20 atacr I don’t believe anything has changed. The ZCO 4-20 often gets touted as one of the best scopes on the market as far as clarity and overall optics are concerned

Parallax being off would bug me. My SB seems to line up well. So does my razor. All others do not have yardage which sucks as well I have found. I don't want to be at match or on hunt raising head up and down trying to find setting

 

[mjwilcox38]

When buying NF a big chunk of the money goes to paying for the NF brand. NF is not worth what they’re asking for. That being said they’re good scopes I have owned a 7-35 and a 4-16 and really liked both. The ZCO is just better and worth it. Better optics, better features, and better reticles. I have own a 420 and a couple 427s I think that if you’re looking for the low end magnification you can’t go wrong with a 420. Out of all the scopes I have own the ZCO has had the best true to dial parallax.

The sniperhide tracking test didn't show good results for the zco 527

 

[NiteQwill]

The sniperhide tracking test didn't show good results for the zco 527

by all means, go for a NF then.

 

[mjwilcox38]

by all means, go for a NF then.

I just saw that. Crazy. Some of the nf were off as well. I know not by much. But you wouldn't expect that paying over 4k for scope.

 

[alfmoonspace]

This thread is sounding like a blonde vs brunette. We get these often here.

 

[CSTactical]

The sniperhide tracking test didn't show good results for the zco 527

Believe everything om the internet...

 

[jbuck88]

I haven't owned a DMR3 but did have the DMR2-i. It's a solid scope. You are getting into diminishing returns by going further up the chain.

Chances are the ZCO won't do anything the Bushy will do.

I have a few Gen3 6-36 Razors and for me it's easier to get behind my ATACR's. The Razors were a good choice for ~$2k at the higher prices they are ok.

I do agree that NF has earned a reputation that they market.

Glass it's very subjective and very hard to paint in broad strokes. My favorite rifle wears the "worst" atacr scope, the 5-25, and I cannot see a reason to change it. It doesn't hold me back at all.

 

[FuhQ]

This ^.

Also, I’ve told many to check your vision before you ditch scopes. Correcting vision/setting the scope up right can save you $$$.

It’s amazing how many people don’t even know that scopes have diopters, and that you can adjust them for your eye.

 

[CSTactical]

I haven't owned a DMR3 but did have the DMR2-i. It's a solid scope. You are getting into diminishing returns by going further up the chain.

Chances are the ZCO won't do anything the Bushy will do.

I have a few Gen3 6-36 Razors and for me it's easier to get behind my ATACR's. The Razors were a good choice for ~$2k at the higher prices they are ok.

I do agree that NF has earned a reputation that they market.

Glass it's very subjective and very hard to paint in broad strokes. My favorite rifle wears the "worst" atacr scope, the 5-25, and I cannot see a reason to change it. It doesn't hold me back at all.

"Chances are the ZCO won't do anything the Bushy will do."



I don't understand why anyone throws a line out like that with no real world experience to quantify that statement.

You bought and own more expensive scopes like the Razor Gen 3 and ATACR's, why not just stick to all Bushnell's???

Obviously your more expensive scopes do something your Bushnell's do not, especially on the 'hide.

-Richard

 

[cypriss32]

I’m going to say this…. I took 3 newer shooters (to precision bolt guns with higher end optics on them out shooting). We used:
1) Mrad 7-35 ATACR Mil XT
2) HIT Pro 6-36 Razor
3) ATX 5-27 ZCO

Everyone said across the board that the ZCO could pick up better definition. The razor edged out the ATACR slightly in clarity and definition. They almost all preferred the Razors ret and the actual scope (there words “less looking through a scope”).
I don’t care as they are all good and I enjoy them equally. I will say the price of $2000 for Gen3 vs $3000 for ATACR makes it a no brainer to buy a razor gen3.


I also have DMR3, XTR3, XTR3 pros. Those don’t really compare. The XTR pro is nice but the eyebox kinda sucks. For it it’s a 5.5-25x scope really.

 

[CSTactical]

I’m going to say this…. I took 3 newer shooters (to precision bolt guns with higher end optics on them out shooting). We used:
1) Mrad 7-35 ATACR Mil XT
2) HIT Pro 6-36 Razor
3) ATX 5-27 ZCO

Everyone said across the board that the ZCO could pick up better definition. The razor edged out the ATACR slightly in clarity and definition. They almost all preferred the Razors ret and the actual scope (there words “less looking through a scope”).
I don’t care as they are all good and I enjoy them equally. I will say the price of $2000 for Gen3 vs $3000 for ATACR makes it a no brainer to buy a razor gen3.


I also have DMR3, XTR3, XTR3 pros. Those don’t really compare. The XTR pro is nice but the eyebox kinda sucks. For it it’s a 5.5-25x scope really.

"I don’t care as they are all good and I enjoy them equally. I will say the price of $2000 for Gen3 vs $3000 for ATACR makes it a no brainer to buy a razor gen3."


Remember, there is no more Liberty Optics selling the RG3's for less than dealers cost anymore...

 

[cypriss32]

"I don’t care as they are all good and I enjoy them equally. I will say the price of $2000 for Gen3 vs $3000 for ATACR makes it a no brainer to buy a razor gen3."


Remember, there is no more Liberty Optics selling the RG3's for less than dealers cost anymore...

I’m not sure why you have the need to say that, I think everyone knows. But, there is tons of new/used gen3 razors at 2000 to 2200 and ATACRs at 3k. Yes some people have mil/le/expertvoice and get there scopes cheaper then retail.

 

[jbuck88]

"Chances are the ZCO won't do anything the Bushy will do."



I don't understand why anyone throws a line out like that with no real world experience to quantify that statement.

You bought and own more expensive scopes like the Razor Gen 3 and ATACR's, why not just stick to all Bushnell's???

Obviously your more expensive scopes do something your Bushnell's do not, especially on the 'hide.

-Richard

In a static range, meaning shooting targets from a bench, the bushnell is a good scope. The point of a scope is to get the bullet to go where the crosshairs are. To get a little better you have to pay a lot more, diminishing returns.

You pay thousand/thousands of dollars to get slightly better controls, slightly better glass or eyebox, or reticle that you like more.

I do have experience with other glass and I like what looks good to my eyes.

I can sit there and pick things I don't like about the Bushnell, but it does a good job for the $800 it cost. The glass is good enough, the eyebox is good enough the illuminated reticle is good enough. Tracking was always perfect.

There is a lot of subjectivity and compromise when designing a scope. The point is you need to find one that makes the compromises you are looking for while keeping the attributes you need.

 

[CSTactical]

I’m not sure why you have the need to say that, I think everyone knows. But, there is tons of new/used gen3 razors at 2000 to 2200 and ATACRs at 3k. Yes some people have mil/le/expertvoice and get there scopes cheaper then retail.

Used and mil/le you are correct, but for years that price was repeated as the norm, I speak to many people daily and still run into people who think that pricing is the normal price as it has been repeated here for a few years.

 

[oldrifleman]

In a static range, meaning shooting targets from a bench, the bushnell is a good scope. The point of a scope is to get the bullet to go where the crosshairs are. To get a little better you have to pay a lot more, diminishing returns.

You pay thousand/thousands of dollars to get slightly better controls, slightly better glass or eyebox, or reticle that you like more.

I do have experience with other glass and I like what looks good to my eyes.

I can sit there and pick things I don't like about the Bushnell, but it does a good job for the $800 it cost. The glass is good enough, the eyebox is good enough the illuminated reticle is good enough. Tracking was always perfect.

There is a lot of subjectivity and compromise when designing a scope. The point is you need to find one that makes the compromises you are looking for while keeping the attributes you need.

Touchy, touchy. The point is that better glass has Better glass (which is of course subjective) and the Parallax adjustments on the higher end scopes are superior. The thing is live in your budget and understand your priorities and use cases. My issue is that every time I cheap out I regret it and end up buy what I really should have gotten in the first place (sometimes with several intermediate cycles). but in the end comparing a Bushnell to a ZCO (same for a Viper V3, NF, TT or SB) is pretty ridiculous

 

[db2000]

Like the S&B, the DMR tunnels if that matters to you. The Burris XTRIIIi has nice glass, great FOV and illumination in case you prefer that for hunting. You probably don’t need a ZCO if you’re considering price points. It’s definitely above and beyond but not by $2300 if you’re considering prices. That being said, ZCO is what I’m using on any serious hunt.

 

[Secant]

ZCO > ATACR > DMR in terms of performance, in my experience.

Value and worth are based on personalities & current financial circumstances - they are less than ideal metrics to project or adopt.

My $600 LRTS was a great BaNG fOR the bUcK, or it wasn’t, but maybe. Objectively, my $3k Tangent curb stomps that bushy in every performance metric. But also, that $3k Tangent now costs over $4k (new), so that was a good value buy?

 

[jbuck88]

No skin in the game for me.

I have no problem spending money on things I want, however throwing $100k+ at glass so each of my guns can have a $6,500 TT is not in the question.

So say the DMR is a 80% scope, gen3 razor/ATACR's/PM2 are ~90%, tt/zco ~95%

Any of those will be able to see and shoot at moa size targets well out past 1k yards. So what do you need and what do you want to spend.

It's all compromise. The more you spend the more features you get, but if it's just a range gun then you need to figure out what you prefer to prioritize.

 

[Islas82]

"I don’t care as they are all good and I enjoy them equally. I will say the price of $2000 for Gen3 vs $3000 for ATACR makes it a no brainer to buy a razor gen3."


Remember, there is no more Liberty Optics selling the RG3's for less than dealers cost anymore...

I was just going to ask where the hell are you guys getting razors for 2k? That statement gets thrown around a lot here like it’s a reality. Maybe you’re right and a lot of people are still waiting on Scott.

 

[CSTactical]

I was just going to ask where the hell are you guys getting razors for 2k? That statement gets thrown around a lot here like it’s a reality. Maybe you’re right and a lot of people are still waiting on Scott.

He reset the market for Vortex which is hurting Vortex and their dealers for an indefinite amount of time...

 

[cypriss32]

He reset the market for Vortex which is hurting Vortex and their dealers for an indefinite amount of time...

Basically he allowed normal people to get almost “industry” prices for stuff. Even to this day it angers a lot. He helped the consumers….. Then created the fuckery that happened.

 

[CSTactical]

Basically he allowed normal people to get almost “industry” prices for stuff. Even to this day it angers a lot. He helped the consumers….. Then created the fuckery that happened.

No it was a scam! He charged people less than what he paid for the item which could only go on so long depending on how much credit you have to spend. What he did was not sustainable!

And then it ended up with hundreds of customers being scammed out of over $100k! He was no Robin Hood!

 

[mjwilcox38]

8

When buying NF a big chunk of the money goes to paying for the NF brand. NF is not worth what they’re asking for. That being said they’re good scopes I have owned a 7-35 and a 4-16 and really liked both. The ZCO is just better and worth it. Better optics, better features, and better reticles. I have own a 420 and a couple 427s I think that if you’re looking for the low end magnification you can’t go wrong with a 420. Out of all the scopes I have own the ZCO has had the best true to dial parallax.

This thread is sounding like a blonde vs brunette. We get these often here.

Yeah. I'm more confused now. Thinking of going in different direction all together. But I appreciate everyone that took the time to respond. There are not a lot of resources where you can compare. I've just bought a lot of different brands to see ones I like. I wish scope manufacturers had to rate everything on a standard score.

 

[mjwilcox38]

Like the S&B, the DMR tunnels if that matters to you. The Burris XTRIIIi has nice glass, great FOV and illumination in case you prefer that for hunting. You probably don’t need a ZCO if you’re considering price points. It’s definitely above and beyond but not by $2300 if you’re considering prices. That being said, ZCO is what I’m using on any serious

 

[mjwilcox38]

I always consider prices. Why would someone not need a zco if there considering price points. I get veteran prices. My question was is a zco worth 1000 more than a atacr.

 

[cypriss32]

No it was a scam! He charged people less than what he paid for the item which could only go on so long depending on how much credit you have to spend. What he did was not sustainable!

And then it ended up with hundreds of customers being scammed out of over $100k! He was no Robin Hood!

Yes Liberty optics scammed a bunch of people, but that was NOT always the case. So your statement is not a honest one. Liberty optics was around on snipershide since 2009. I highly doubt he could have been charging less than what he paid in turn losing money. That’s not possible for 14 plus years he’s been here.

 

[Islas82]

I always consider prices. Why would someone not need a zco if there considering price points. I get veteran prices. My question was is a zco worth 1000 more than a atacr.

No. Take advantage of your mil discount and get what makes sense to you.

 

[mjwilcox38]

I was just going to ask where the hell are you guys getting razors for 2k? That statement gets thrown around a lot here like it’s a reality. Maybe you’re right and a lot of people are still waiting on Scott.

Veteran prices 40 % off thru euro. Sometimes 50% off when they have a sale. 2400 currently.