• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Official Zero Compromise Optic News & Updates

JT1.JPG
 
Well I did because I’m generally curious…
This is how it went... 2nd ZCO was returned immediately with the same issue for a refund, ZCO mount, also returned... Have spoke to 2 people on the phone since with the same issue who advised they were going to be calling ZCO... I've moved on... NF zeroed in 10 rounds all is now good to go...

IMG_3712.jpeg

IMG_3709.jpeg
 
Last edited:
This is how it went... 2nd ZCO was returned immediately with the same issue for a refund, ZCO mount, also returned... Have spoke to 2 people on the phone since with the same issue who advised they were going to be calling ZCO... I've moved on... NF zeroed in 10 rounds all is now good to go...

Im late to the party. Can someone post the post# or explain what happened to both the ZCO scopes and mount that cause the return?
 
Im late to the party. Can someone post the post# or explain what happened to both the ZCO scopes and mount that cause the return?
I’m not @HTI-416 but I have read most posts in this thread.

I believe this was with a 8-40 on a large magnum gun and, at least for the first scope, the member felt it wouldn’t hold zero and would wander shot to shot.

To the best of my recollection
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FNG1001
Im late to the party. Can someone post the post# or explain what happened to both the ZCO scopes and mount that cause the return?

It was explained to me that it’s a mount issue around Spuhrs with ZCO’s. A very small percentage are causing issues and it’s believed to be the tapered head screws causing pressure. I’m not an engineer, but that’s how it was explained to me and in the very small percentage of people putting them in Spuhrs (I was told either 1/10 or 1/20) and having this issue that changing the mount solved it. It appears this guy might have something else going on, who knows.

I was told that up front before I ordered a ZCO (not by ZCO) and had no hesitation about it then and still don’t. Everyone I talked to with them or have used them extensively has had nothing but great things to say about them.

It was enough of a concern though that I decided to try a Hawkins mount for the first time and forgo the Spuhr.

Again I’m not an engineer but I’ve seen the slow mo vids of 50 cals flexing the rifle and optic under recoil and I could see how the long ass objective hanging out beyond the mount of the ZCO840 could flex even more and shit inside of the scope not liking that on a heavy recoiling rifle.

The fact that they bought the optic back from him after he used it because he was not satisfied speaks volumes to me about ZCO.
 
This is how it went... 2nd ZCO was returned immediately with the same issue for a refund, ZCO mount, also returned... Have spoke to 2 people on the phone since with the same issue who advised they were going to be calling ZCO... I've moved on... NF zeroed in 10 rounds all is now good to go...
Did you try it in the ZCO rings also or just the Spuhr again?
 
Did you try it in the ZCO rings also or just the Spuhr again?
I ordered the ZCO mount as recommended for the replacement optic, followed the mounting instructions I received on the phone right down to 18 inch lbs and 20 inch lbs on the ring screws, even spacing with no metal to metal on the ZCO mount and there was no change to the results.. In fact the results were worse than the first scope..

NF instructions, 25 inch lbs on ring screws and 45 inch lbs on base screws / 10 rounds to zero..
 
I ordered the ZCO mount as recommended for the replacement optic, followed the mounting instructions I received on the phone right down to 18 inch lbs and 20 inch lbs on the ring screws, even spacing with no metal to metal on the ZCO mount and there was no change to the results.. In fact the results were worse than the first scope..

NF instructions, 25 inch lbs on ring screws and 45 inch lbs on base screws / 10 rounds to zero..
Thanks. I read a few posts below yours and the poster made it sound like it's strictly a ZCO paired with Spuhr issue.
 
It was explained to me that it’s a mount issue around Spuhrs with ZCO’s. A very small percentage are causing issues and it’s believed to be the tapered head screws causing pressure. I’m not an engineer, but that’s how it was explained to me and in the very small percentage of people putting them in Spuhrs (I was told either 1/10 or 1/20) and having this issue that changing the mount solved it. It appears this guy might have something else going on, who knows.

I was told that up front before I ordered a ZCO (not by ZCO) and had no hesitation about it then and still don’t. Everyone I talked to with them or have used them extensively has had nothing but great things to say about them.

It was enough of a concern though that I decided to try a Hawkins mount for the first time and forgo the Spuhr.

Again I’m not an engineer but I’ve seen the slow mo vids of 50 cals flexing the rifle and optic under recoil and I could see how the long ass objective hanging out beyond the mount of the ZCO840 could flex even more and shit inside of the scope not liking that on a heavy recoiling rifle.

The fact that they bought the optic back from him after he used it because he was not satisfied speaks volumes to me about ZCO.
It wasnt that i wasn't satisfied, the scope was operationally malfunctioning.. Their internal tests indicated there were issues with the optic.. I attempted to move forward with a replacement and it didn't fare any better.. So, to your point, i have received a full refund, and that is good customer service, but I really wanted a operationally sound ZCO scope for $4150.00, not a series of issues... Not being snarky, just sayin...
 
It wasnt that i wasn't satisfied, the scope was operationally malfunctioning.. Their internal tests indicated there were issues with the optic.. I attempted to move forward with a replacement and it didn't fare any better.. So, to your point, i have received a full refund, and that is good customer service, but I really wanted a operationally sound ZCO scope for $4150.00, not a series of issues... Not being snarky, just sayin...

I get it. I still think it’s likely that it being on the rifle it was is what caused the issue.

It would be interesting to see if others mounting them on large bore rifles have the same problem.
 
Thanks. I read a few posts below yours and the poster made it sound like it's strictly a ZCO paired with Spuhr issue.
I was led to believe that the Spuhr in combination with the 8-40's length and possible recoil energy due to the caliber I'm utilizing isn't a best case scenario. After using the ZCO mount I saw no change in results.. Furthermore i wasn't happy with the finish on the ZCO mount. The finish was different colors, the picatinny clamps were bronze colored and the level flipped in and out as i shot the rifle.. Sub-par in my opinion for the money...
 
I get it. I still think it’s likely that it being on the rifle it was is what caused the issue.

It would be interesting to see if others mounting them on large bore rifles have the same problem.
The concern,, at least to me, is there are others having issues but they are not being public about it.. I spoke to a hide member a few nights ago via phone with a similar issue on a smaller PRS caliber rifle with a 527.. Folks are reaching out and a retailer spoke to me as well... I think this is a relatively new company, still under development and all will eventually get worked out.. But my (guess) is this is a bigger issue than some believe, but to be clear, that is only speculation, i have no proof.. I do wish others would mention their concern publically so the community as a whole could have the information..
 
The concern,, at least to me, is there are others having issues but they are not being public about it.. I spoke to a hide member a few nights ago via phone with a similar issue on a smaller PRS caliber rifle with a 527.. Folks are reaching out and a retailer spoke to me as well... I think this is a relatively new company, still under development and all will eventually get worked out.. But my (guess) is this is a bigger issue than some believe, but to be clear, that is only speculation, i have no proof.. I do wish others would mention their concern publically so the community as a whole could have the information..

This is the only thing I could find when I was looking into them that was remotely negative and I personally put zero faith into this guys practices for a lot of reasons. He claims the scope moved in the ZCO mount on a braked 308 and failed the drop test and then more recently followed up with another rifle saying it produced larger the normal groups.

 
  • Like
Reactions: HTI-416
This is the only thing I could find when I was looking into them that was remotely negative and I personally put zero faith into this guys practices for a lot of reasons. He claims the scope moved in the ZCO mount on a braked 308 and failed the drop test and then more recently followed up with another rifle saying it produced larger the normal groups.

Torture tests are fine, and whether is legit or not i don't know, but for me i just want quality equipment that works as advertised when treated well... I don't expect to drop my scope and rifle, i also don't expect a company to cover my slippery / careless handling of their product...

I hope ZCO becomes the world's best optic, but "for me" it didn't work out... I can't be mad, they stood by the product.. The only thing i might question is them telling folks it's the spuhr.. I do not believe the Spuhr alone is the issue. I had the same problem with their mount as well..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Correct... I would think Spuhr would be having discussion with ZCO about implicating their product in the failure of ZCO's product.. Just saying...
We haven't implicated them in any sort of way for any problem. We actually highly recommend their products and one of our major dealers has worked with them as well to figure out why some issues happen. It was this cooperation with Spuhr that resulted in the procedure of no gap on one side of the ring cap and then torquing the other side.

At no point have we ever said that they had a faulty product causing issues with ours. Or that their product is a sole cause of any issues customers experience with our products. There are some special considerations, that is all.
 
We haven't implicated them in any sort of way for any problem. We actually highly recommend their products and one of our major dealers has worked with them as well to figure out why some issues happen. It was this cooperation with Spuhr that resulted in the procedure of no gap on one side of the ring cap and then torquing the other side.

At no point have we ever said that they had a faulty product causing issues with ours. Or that their product is a sole cause of any issues customers experience with our products. There are some special considerations, that is all.
I agree you haven't said they are a faulty product, you have said (to me) that I should buy your mount, which i did and the outcome was the same... The Spuhr "issue" is not the "issue".... Period... So when telling people not to buy a Spuhr which has been done, and stating "people / customers" should buy your ZCO mount to better support the length of the optic, that is impliating or at least implying a product in your products failure for the sale and benefit of your ZCO product that is NO better, and produces the same failed results as the product your telling people to avoid... I can share emails to what i was told if need be...

Also there are others on here that were told not to buy a Spuhr, i just got done talking to one of those customers just moments ago, who bought your ZCO mount due to the information told to him about Spuhr's usage with the 840...

I spoke to a gentleman via phone a few nights ago that did the Spuhr metal to metal on one side / then torque down on the open side method of tightening their ZCO 5-27 that has been advised as the "new" "proper" way of installation and seems to be experiencing an issue having a 1 to 2 moa impact variance on their rifle... A know platform that shoots just fine with another scope on it...

Here is a snippet of PM comments i sent you...

Hey there - I see some chatter about the issues you had but *I* (edit ) don't have the time to go through long threads. would you mind filling me in on the issues you experienced and what I should look for? I was talked out of a Spuhr and into a ZCO mount. I haven't had the opportunity to mount to a rifle or even use it to shoot yet/ Would love any insight you would be willing to share. Thank you.

-A
________________________________________________________________________

HaHa
ZCO was one of the worst decisions I made in regards regards to my shooting experience!!!

Like me.....move forward and Enjoy! :)

________________________________________________________________________

Good luck..

I have and use Spuhr mounts with many other optics....never an issue.
ZCO blamed the issues I had on mounts also....
The issue is their scopes erector and to close a tolerance....not the mounts.
BTW.....tried their mount and guess what....issue was still apparent.

Good luck..

_________________________________________________________________________

Damn that really sucks. Was the poi shift mostly vertical, or all over the place? I recently got a 5-27 and I’m not sure I trust it. Only shooting it on a 24# dasher and it seems like I’m always dicking with the zero vertically, when my back up gun with various other scopes never seems to move.


Shall I go on??
 
Last edited:
I believe it is time for ZCO to respond here a little. We have always done our very best, and will continue to do so, to produce the finest rifle scopes on the market. We also do everything we can to take care of any customer and their ZCO product and address any issue that arises. If we see similar problems we figure out what is causing those problems and make any necessary corrections if needed.

Regarding the particular scopes from HTI-416.....we received the first one back from him and tested that scope out extensively for tracking as well as holding point of impact through our testing protocol. There was a small issue found but NOTHING that would have caused a point of impact change or tracking error in the scope. Regardless, we sent him a replacement scope that was gone through extensively and repeatedly checked for POI and tracking. The scope was set to a zero, impacted and held POA/POI. It was then ran up in elevation and checked again for POA/POI upon impact testing. It was then ran up in elevation again and passed all inspection points. The scope returned to zero and held after impact testing. Everything we can do on dedicated optical testing equipment (not subject to potential problems with rifle/ammo/shooter) showed this scope to be as durable as any other scope we put together. We wanted to ensure this replacement scope being sent was as perfect and robust as it could be.

I do not have all the specific details on what this customer saw, the tests he did to conclude the scope was at fault, or anything like that. It doesn't really matter at this point.

Here is what we at ZCO are going to check. We know the scopes passed all of our laboratory testing for tracking, impact, parallax, etc. We will be putting the second scope on a Barrett 99, 50 BMG rifle mounted with one of our Block Mounts. The Barrett 99 isn't exactly a "heavy" rifle. We'll conduct live fire testing to determine if there is something going on with the scope that we aren't able to replicate in the lab. We'll bounce the scope back to a much more precise rifle (known accuracy standard) for verification of anything coming loose internally from the recoil. If needed, it'll then go back to the lab for further analysis.

We've done everything we can to take care of this customer, as we would for ANY customer. Being dedicated professionals to produce the best scopes in the world, we are going to do our part to verify on our end if something was truly wrong with this scope giving him problems. As we all know, there's lots of things that can happen and more often than not, the scope is the first to receive the blame. We'll do what we can to figure out if this is the case or not. But for now, our lab testing protocol, which is pretty intensive by the way, showed no fault with the scope. We'll definitely get to the bottom of it though. Give us some time, this won't be a quick process as we aren't going to rush it, but be very deliberate in the testing procedure for live fire.

Thank you to all of our customers for giving us the opportunity to research and respond as appropriate.
 
This is reminiscent of all the "problems" people had with the Berger 109's when they were first released. You can go back through the posts here on Hide when so many people claimed they weren't getting consistent results like the 105's. We either bought all we could or traded 105's for them. As they were just about the most consistent mass produced bullet created at that point and performed/perform amazingly. Eventually everyone figured out they just weren't as good at adapting/loading ammo as they realized and figured out the 109 was a great bullet.

We've tested somewhere in the realm of 100 optics for customer complaints (not just ZCO and not just optics purchased from us). And the failure rate on optics (even cheap ones) is less than 5%. The rest was mostly user error or something else mechanical in the rifle setup.

There are always going to be users on the fringe. Be it just unlucky to be on the wrong side of the bell curve and receive an optic or two that actually doesn't work.....or they are just people who have decided they are going to not like a certain company or product.

But, overwhelmingly the issues are the user and not the products.
 
Also, FWIW, any company is going to recommend you either use A) their product or branded product or B) a product they are very familiar with. This doesn't mean they are implying other products (spuhr in this example) are inferior. They are just familiar with their own product and it's a safe/proven recommendation.

For example, we primarily use ARC rings and mounts. Our rifles are tested using them and we are very confident with them. If someone has an issue with a rifle or optic, our testing process starts with the optic being placed in ARC rings.
 
I believe it is time for ZCO to respond here a little. We have always done our very best, and will continue to do so, to produce the finest rifle scopes on the market. We also do everything we can to take care of any customer and their ZCO product and address any issue that arises. If we see similar problems we figure out what is causing those problems and make any necessary corrections if needed.

Regarding the particular scopes from HTI-416.....we received the first one back from him and tested that scope out extensively for tracking as well as holding point of impact through our testing protocol. There was a small issue found but NOTHING that would have caused a point of impact change or tracking error in the scope. Regardless, we sent him a replacement scope that was gone through extensively and repeatedly checked for POI and tracking. The scope was set to a zero, impacted and held POA/POI. It was then ran up in elevation and checked again for POA/POI upon impact testing. It was then ran up in elevation again and passed all inspection points. The scope returned to zero and held after impact testing. Everything we can do on dedicated optical testing equipment (not subject to potential problems with rifle/ammo/shooter) showed this scope to be as durable as any other scope we put together. We wanted to ensure this replacement scope being sent was as perfect and robust as it could be.

I do not have all the specific details on what this customer saw, the tests he did to conclude the scope was at fault, or anything like that. It doesn't really matter at this point.

Here is what we at ZCO are going to check. We know the scopes passed all of our laboratory testing for tracking, impact, parallax, etc. We will be putting the second scope on a Barrett 99, 50 BMG rifle mounted with one of our Block Mounts. The Barrett 99 isn't exactly a "heavy" rifle. We'll conduct live fire testing to determine if there is something going on with the scope that we aren't able to replicate in the lab. We'll bounce the scope back to a much more precise rifle (known accuracy standard) for verification of anything coming loose internally from the recoil. If needed, it'll then go back to the lab for further analysis.

We've done everything we can to take care of this customer, as we would for ANY customer. Being dedicated professionals to produce the best scopes in the world, we are going to do our part to verify on our end if something was truly wrong with this scope giving him problems. As we all know, there's lots of things that can happen and more often than not, the scope is the first to receive the blame. We'll do what we can to figure out if this is the case or not. But for now, our lab testing protocol, which is pretty intensive by the way, showed no fault with the scope. We'll definitely get to the bottom of it though. Give us some time, this won't be a quick process as we aren't going to rush it, but be very deliberate in the testing procedure for live fire.

Thank you to all of our customers for giving us the opportunity to research and respond as appropriate.
I have been looking forward to hearing the facts from the ZCO point of view. I appreciate your narrative of the events. I also look forward to the end result. I do not judge a company one or two issues as every company has them. I do judge based on how they react after one is found and I believe so far your action have been well above the norm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gebhardt02
I believe it is time for ZCO to respond here a little. We have always done our very best, and will continue to do so, to produce the finest rifle scopes on the market. We also do everything we can to take care of any customer and their ZCO product and address any issue that arises. If we see similar problems we figure out what is causing those problems and make any necessary corrections if needed.

Regarding the particular scopes from HTI-416.....we received the first one back from him and tested that scope out extensively for tracking as well as holding point of impact through our testing protocol. There was a small issue found but NOTHING that would have caused a point of impact change or tracking error in the scope. Regardless, we sent him a replacement scope that was gone through extensively and repeatedly checked for POI and tracking. The scope was set to a zero, impacted and held POA/POI. It was then ran up in elevation and checked again for POA/POI upon impact testing. It was then ran up in elevation again and passed all inspection points. The scope returned to zero and held after impact testing. Everything we can do on dedicated optical testing equipment (not subject to potential problems with rifle/ammo/shooter) showed this scope to be as durable as any other scope we put together. We wanted to ensure this replacement scope being sent was as perfect and robust as it could be.

I do not have all the specific details on what this customer saw, the tests he did to conclude the scope was at fault, or anything like that. It doesn't really matter at this point.

Here is what we at ZCO are going to check. We know the scopes passed all of our laboratory testing for tracking, impact, parallax, etc. We will be putting the second scope on a Barrett 99, 50 BMG rifle mounted with one of our Block Mounts. The Barrett 99 isn't exactly a "heavy" rifle. We'll conduct live fire testing to determine if there is something going on with the scope that we aren't able to replicate in the lab. We'll bounce the scope back to a much more precise rifle (known accuracy standard) for verification of anything coming loose internally from the recoil. If needed, it'll then go back to the lab for further analysis.

We've done everything we can to take care of this customer, as we would for ANY customer. Being dedicated professionals to produce the best scopes in the world, we are going to do our part to verify on our end if something was truly wrong with this scope giving him problems. As we all know, there's lots of things that can happen and more often than not, the scope is the first to receive the blame. We'll do what we can to figure out if this is the case or not. But for now, our lab testing protocol, which is pretty intensive by the way, showed no fault with the scope. We'll definitely get to the bottom of it though. Give us some time, this won't be a quick process as we aren't going to rush it, but be very deliberate in the testing procedure for live fire.

Thank you to all of our customers for giving us the opportunity to research and respond as appropriate.
Personally I've not had a bit of trouble with my 5-27. And, I've shot it in two each Frank/Marc clinic where we check zero, put it on a Targets USA fixture and test tracking and return to zero, , walk out to a 1,000 at 100 at a time, come back and check zero (don't even know how many times we checked zero but there was ample opportunity to see if the scope lost zero or couldn't hold it for a group), and even shot small groups at a 3" (or maybe 2") target at 300 yards in the midst of all this turret cranking up and down. And in every instance my 5-27 tracked consistently and accurately and returned to zero precisely. I never had to fix my zero and I never saw any drift in its precision.

As I mentioned in a earlier post, the hazard of going on and on about a failure of a product that you bought is that we all have seen where reports of "bad product from x manf" threads get blown out of proportion without any qualifying information such as total fielded population and actual failure rate.

X guy has an issue with Y product and the narrative often takes off straight to "oh, this must be POS product" without knowing that (for a made up example) that the fielded population is in the thousands and failed products are only a fraction of a percent of items shipped. That sort of perspective is never posted (or really available to guys like us) so, again, the customer thread gets blown out of proportion and a "reputation for crap" becomes "conventional wisdom" which is almost always not wise.

Take care, @gebhardt02, and I look forward to your posting the result of your live fire/more lab testing.

Oh, and I still love my can chap cover and I think I sold a few for you to guys at the club! :)
 
Last edited:
@gebhardt02

FWIW, the two posters with "major" complaints in this entire thread both seem to be using DT rifles. Might be something to look at in an attempt to replicate.
They also appear to account for 99% of all claims of failure. IIRC, one user stated a failure rate of like 75% (three of four scopes purchased).

Edit: according to another thread, it's actually five of five. 100% scope failure over five samples. Two of two above. I see a lot of ZCOs in the field, including mine, and have not heard one complaint. Zero. And if there's a problem, people are generally very vocal about it. See above.
 
Last edited:
We all get you had issues with the ZCO scopes you had. We all get ZCO have attempted to go above and beyond to resolve the issues, but unfortunately you are not happy with the end result. No stress with you stating this once or twice with clear details around your issues.
But tbh, it is getting fucking monotonous the continual insinuations in almost every post you make across this board. How about give it a rest…

For those that have had “issues” with ZCO. Instead of this pm shadow messaging shit, how about contacting ZCO directly with full details of your issues so they can try and see if there is a design, manufacturing or common equipment issue at hand.

@gebhardt02 - appreciate your responses and attempt to get to the bottom of issues raised. Can only make the product and community a better place.


I agree you haven't said they are a faulty product, you have said (to me) that I should buy your mount, which i did and the outcome was the same... The Spuhr "issue" is not the "issue".... Period... So when telling people not to buy a Spuhr which has been done, and stating "people / customers" should buy your ZCO mount to better support the length of the optic, that is impliating or at least implying a product in your products failure for the sale and benefit of your ZCO product that is NO better, and produces the same failed results as the product your telling people to avoid... I can share emails to what i was told if need be...

Also there are others on here that were told not to buy a Spuhr, i just got done talking to one of those customers just moments ago, who bought your ZCO mount due to the information told to him about Spuhr's usage with the 840...

I spoke to a gentleman via phone a few nights ago that did the Spuhr metal to metal on one side / then torque down on the open side method of tightening their ZCO 5-27 that has been advised as the "new" "proper" way of installation and seems to be experiencing an issue having a 1 to 2 moa impact variance on their rifle... A know platform that shoots just fine with another scope on it...

Here is a snippet of PM comments i sent you...

Hey there - I see some chatter about the issues you had but *I* (edit ) don't have the time to go through long threads. would you mind filling me in on the issues you experienced and what I should look for? I was talked out of a Spuhr and into a ZCO mount. I haven't had the opportunity to mount to a rifle or even use it to shoot yet/ Would love any insight you would be willing to share. Thank you.

-A
________________________________________________________________________

HaHa
ZCO was one of the worst decisions I made in regards regards to my shooting experience!!!

Like me.....move forward and Enjoy! :)

________________________________________________________________________

Good luck..

I have and use Spuhr mounts with many other optics....never an issue.
ZCO blamed the issues I had on mounts also....
The issue is their scopes erector and to close a tolerance....not the mounts.
BTW.....tried their mount and guess what....issue was still apparent.

Good luck..

_________________________________________________________________________

Damn that really sucks. Was the poi shift mostly vertical, or all over the place? I recently got a 5-27 and I’m not sure I trust it. Only shooting it on a 24# dasher and it seems like I’m always dicking with the zero vertically, when my back up gun with various other scopes never seems to move.


Shall I go on??
 
Last edited:
We all get you had issues with the ZCO scopes you had. We all get ZCO have attempted to go above and beyond to resolve the issues, but unfortunately you are not happy with the end result. No stress with you stating this once or twice with clear details around your issues.
But tbh, it is getting fucking monotonous the continual insulations in almost every post you make across this board. How about give it a rest…

For those that have had “issues” with ZCO. Instead of this pm shadow messaging shit, how about contacting ZCO directly with full details of your issues so they can try and see if there is a design, manufacturing or common equipment issue at hand.

@gebhardt02 - appreciate your responses and attempt to get to the bottom of issues raised. Can only make the product and community a better place.
If you go back and look you will see someone asked, prior to that i hadn't said a word... So it would appear there are those that want information.. Take it up with them...
 
This is the only thing I could find when I was looking into them that was remotely negative and I personally put zero faith into this guys practices for a lot of reasons. He claims the scope moved in the ZCO mount on a braked 308 and failed the drop test and then more recently followed up with another rifle saying it produced larger the normal groups.

That guy hates any brand that isn't Nightforce, Trijicon, or SWFA. No one else has ever made a scope worth anything to him.
 
This is the only thing I could find when I was looking into them that was remotely negative and I personally put zero faith into this guys practices for a lot of reasons. He claims the scope moved in the ZCO mount on a braked 308 and failed the drop test and then more recently followed up with another rifle saying it produced larger the normal groups.


He lost me when he claimed the glass was the same or worse than NF. There's a lot of subjective stuff, but ZCO and Theta glass is as close to a universal opinion that it's better than everything else.
 
Might be something, might not. But, it's slowly moving out of the coincidental realm. Doesn't mean it's the optic.....could be some other commonality.
I’ve sold quite a few ZCO’s and a number to owners who put them on DT rifles. When we hear back from customers regarding the ZCO scopes they purchased from us, it’s usually to purchase a second one.

It’s been a few years, but I remember Applied Ballistics using some DT rifles for test rifles. It allowed them to have one platform to test many different calibers/barrels.
 
I’ve sold quite a few ZCO’s and a number to owners who put them on DT rifles. When we hear back from customers regarding the ZCO scopes they purchased from us, it’s usually to purchase a second one.

It’s been a few years, but I remember Applied Ballistics using some DT rifles for test rifles. It allowed them to have one platform to test many different calibers/barrels.
A young friend who purchased my old Gen 1 SRS Desert Tech 308 win / 338 lap and ZCO 5-27 has had no issues whatsoever , i shot many many rounds with that combo and my friend has put quite a few through it as well .... Scope and rifle are still performing Superbly
 

Attachments

  • 20220813_121509.jpg
    20220813_121509.jpg
    843.3 KB · Views: 48
  • 20220813_125041.jpg
    20220813_125041.jpg
    749.5 KB · Views: 42
  • SRS-308-#1.jpg
    SRS-308-#1.jpg
    505.8 KB · Views: 41
  • www20220813_125045.jpg
    www20220813_125045.jpg
    415 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
A little Autumn vibes for your Sunday...

"Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay."
— Robert Frost​


0M6A1702sml.jpg
 
For everybody following the recent discussion regarding a recent claimed “failure” of a ZCO 8-40X56, I’m going to provide an update on the recoil testing that we conducted on this specific scope.

I placed the ZC840 in one of our block mounts and leveled the scope up on a Short Action Customs Final Scope Level. I originally placed the scope as far rearward in the mount as possible so the front ring was as far forward as it could be on the main tube of the optic. I tightened the front ring cap screws with a Fix it Sticks torque limiter at 25 inch pounds. This is more torque than we typically recommend but we wanted to do a cursory check to see if this affected parallax function of the scope. It did NOT affect anything, the parallax turned and worked as normal. I ran the parallax through the entire range while looking through the scope. Within the FOV was grass as close at 20 yards and mountains beyond 2 miles away as well as terrain in between.

I then checked for reticle movement through one rotation of the elevation turret and every click provided movement of the reticle.

After this initial check I repositioned the scope, so the turret adjustments were more centered in the rings of the mount. This is where I would personally mount the scope anyway and where I think most people would place it. The ring cap screws were again tightened to 25 inch pounds and everything checked for function. Again, no issues at all. This is where the scope remained for the recoil testing.

This scope/mount was live fire tested on a PRS rig chambered in 6.5X47, then a Barrett 99 chambered in 50 BMG, then finally mounted on a 300WM as a final test after the big 50 cal. I fired baseline groups to determine an accuracy standpoint for each rifle system with this specific scope (no changes from the previous optics used on each platform), checked elevation tracking up to 5 Mils on a paper target at 100 yards, and then checked return to zero. On every platform, the scope zeroed easily, held zero, point of impact moved exactly the amount dialed on the scope, and came right back to the previous zero. No deviations in point of aim/point of impact were observed.

We are 100% confident in this scope being completely sound and without any fault, as we suspected.

Our laboratory testing procedure has been developed over a few decades of experience in the precision rifle scope industry. ZCO’s testing protocol for impact, turret tracking, and holding point of aim is intensive for a reason. The optical testing machines being used show a much higher level of detail than even live fire testing can resolve as there isn’t the ammunition, rifle, and shooter accuracy to skew results. Our machines can resolve half of the thickness of the crosshair deviation if anything happens. Nevertheless, we still took the time to conduct these live fire tests and see if something strange happened to show up.

We are of course pleased that there is in fact nothing wrong with the scope at all. Thanks for reading through this. Enjoy the pictures.
DSC_0033.jpg
PXL_20231114_161749127.jpg
 
For everybody following the recent discussion regarding a recent claimed “failure” of a ZCO 8-40X56, I’m going to provide an update on the recoil testing that we conducted on this specific scope.

I placed the ZC840 in one of our block mounts and leveled the scope up on a Short Action Customs Final Scope Level. I originally placed the scope as far rearward in the mount as possible so the front ring was as far forward as it could be on the main tube of the optic. I tightened the front ring cap screws with a Fix it Sticks torque limiter at 25 inch pounds. This is more torque than we typically recommend but we wanted to do a cursory check to see if this affected parallax function of the scope. It did NOT affect anything, the parallax turned and worked as normal. I ran the parallax through the entire range while looking through the scope. Within the FOV was grass as close at 20 yards and mountains beyond 2 miles away as well as terrain in between.

I then checked for reticle movement through one rotation of the elevation turret and every click provided movement of the reticle.

After this initial check I repositioned the scope, so the turret adjustments were more centered in the rings of the mount. This is where I would personally mount the scope anyway and where I think most people would place it. The ring cap screws were again tightened to 25 inch pounds and everything checked for function. Again, no issues at all. This is where the scope remained for the recoil testing.

This scope/mount was live fire tested on a PRS rig chambered in 6.5X47, then a Barrett 99 chambered in 50 BMG, then finally mounted on a 300WM as a final test after the big 50 cal. I fired baseline groups to determine an accuracy standpoint for each rifle system with this specific scope (no changes from the previous optics used on each platform), checked elevation tracking up to 5 Mils on a paper target at 100 yards, and then checked return to zero. On every platform, the scope zeroed easily, held zero, point of impact moved exactly the amount dialed on the scope, and came right back to the previous zero. No deviations in point of aim/point of impact were observed.

We are 100% confident in this scope being completely sound and without any fault, as we suspected.

Our laboratory testing procedure has been developed over a few decades of experience in the precision rifle scope industry. ZCO’s testing protocol for impact, turret tracking, and holding point of aim is intensive for a reason. The optical testing machines being used show a much higher level of detail than even live fire testing can resolve as there isn’t the ammunition, rifle, and shooter accuracy to skew results. Our machines can resolve half of the thickness of the crosshair deviation if anything happens. Nevertheless, we still took the time to conduct these live fire tests and see if something strange happened to show up.

We are of course pleased that there is in fact nothing wrong with the scope at all. Thanks for reading through this. Enjoy the pictures.View attachment 8272266View attachment 8272268
Didn't the member here buy and return two of these scopes to you? If so (and my memory is a bit sketchy on this), was any fault found with the other unit?
 
For everybody following the recent discussion regarding a recent claimed “failure” of a ZCO 8-40X56, I’m going to provide an update on the recoil testing that we conducted on this specific scope.

I placed the ZC840 in one of our block mounts and leveled the scope up on a Short Action Customs Final Scope Level. I originally placed the scope as far rearward in the mount as possible so the front ring was as far forward as it could be on the main tube of the optic. I tightened the front ring cap screws with a Fix it Sticks torque limiter at 25 inch pounds. This is more torque than we typically recommend but we wanted to do a cursory check to see if this affected parallax function of the scope. It did NOT affect anything, the parallax turned and worked as normal. I ran the parallax through the entire range while looking through the scope. Within the FOV was grass as close at 20 yards and mountains beyond 2 miles away as well as terrain in between.

I then checked for reticle movement through one rotation of the elevation turret and every click provided movement of the reticle.

After this initial check I repositioned the scope, so the turret adjustments were more centered in the rings of the mount. This is where I would personally mount the scope anyway and where I think most people would place it. The ring cap screws were again tightened to 25 inch pounds and everything checked for function. Again, no issues at all. This is where the scope remained for the recoil testing.

This scope/mount was live fire tested on a PRS rig chambered in 6.5X47, then a Barrett 99 chambered in 50 BMG, then finally mounted on a 300WM as a final test after the big 50 cal. I fired baseline groups to determine an accuracy standpoint for each rifle system with this specific scope (no changes from the previous optics used on each platform), checked elevation tracking up to 5 Mils on a paper target at 100 yards, and then checked return to zero. On every platform, the scope zeroed easily, held zero, point of impact moved exactly the amount dialed on the scope, and came right back to the previous zero. No deviations in point of aim/point of impact were observed.

We are 100% confident in this scope being completely sound and without any fault, as we suspected.

Our laboratory testing procedure has been developed over a few decades of experience in the precision rifle scope industry. ZCO’s testing protocol for impact, turret tracking, and holding point of aim is intensive for a reason. The optical testing machines being used show a much higher level of detail than even live fire testing can resolve as there isn’t the ammunition, rifle, and shooter accuracy to skew results. Our machines can resolve half of the thickness of the crosshair deviation if anything happens. Nevertheless, we still took the time to conduct these live fire tests and see if something strange happened to show up.

We are of course pleased that there is in fact nothing wrong with the scope at all. Thanks for reading through this. Enjoy the pictures.View attachment 8272266View attachment 8272268
Somehow, I'm completely NOT surprised AT ALL. Can we just end this shit show now? What else can you do? I never bought into this 5 for 5 claim Crapola to begin with but I sure don't now.
 
His original scope had one minor issue but not that would have caused the issue being reported. I tested the second scope that was also sent back.
Just for closure, what was the diagnosis on the five "broken" scopes from Australia?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23