• 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 Tangent Theta - TT525P

The market will ultimately determine if the price-performance ratio is acceptable. I'll vote with my wallet, as will everyone else. This is the only vote that matters.

I'll be waiting this one out, not because I distrust Orkan or because I have issues with the price, but rather because every single fuckin' new scope seems to go through its own version of the Gartner Hype Cycle, and it takes a while for us to figure out what works and what doesn't.
 
Hey Grey, I saw on TT's site when they adjust the zero stop, they are only backing the cap off a 1/4 to half turn. I noticed in your video that you loosened the cap several turns and adjusted your zero. I am wondering if this procedure could have effectively misaligned the turret cap with the indicator markings?

Your reviews are always a helpful REFERENCE for the purchaser whom may not have the ability to see the optic in question first hand. YOUR assessment on the TT is a valuable one.

It points out features which are present on THIS optic.

1.) Tool-less re-zero
2.) positive clicks
3.) No tunneling
and many others to which I am not qualified to access.

To some of the other participants on this forum. The TT is not a S&B and S&B is not a TT. The differences are obvious and to say they are the same scope is absurd. As to the the quality of each optic and saying which one is better, that is subjective and a matter of preference. One obvious difference is the S&B tunnels on lower powers where the TT does not. Another is the S&B requires an allen wrench and sometimes the removal of the turret cap to adjust the zero on some models...the TT does not. These features are a matter of preference to the end user and does not make one scope better than the other.

This is my opinion and in no way am I saying I am right or wrong and in no way am I saying I have a professional opinion on this matter. This is merely an opinion of a consumer.
 
I'm very curious as to what leads you to this conclusion. Can you share why you feel this to be the case? Statements like this make me feel as though I've not adequately covered the scopes feature set. Perhaps there's something I'm not showing adequately?

That is a good question, and there was nothing in your review that was inadequate. Maybe just a different way of looking at it.

I see that the TT525P and the PMII 5-25x25 have these similar features:

Double Turn Turret
5x-25x Magnification Range
56mm Objective Lens Diameter
Elevation travel of 26-28 mrad (there is only 2 mrad difference between the scopes)
Adjustment resolution .1 mrad
First Focal Plane
Illuminated Reticle
Eye relief very similar: 88.9mm versus 90mm
Diopter range very similar: -3 to +2.5 versus -3 to +2
Zero Stop (although a nice feature is TT's tool less feature)

I see there are other minor differences such as illumination know placement. The TT has a locking diopter adjustment. The PMII has a locking turret design. Just a brief review of the similarities and differences that I see as a customer.
 
The Hensoldt 26x & Vortex 27x have close to the same features, there is a $4k difference in price, size and weight are pretty close to each other also.

If I set up a table on a street corner and did the "Pepsi Challenge" do you think the average passer-by would be able to tell ?
 
The Hensoldt 26x & Vortex 27x have close to the same features, there is a $4k difference in price, size and weight are pretty close to each other also.

If I set up a table on a street corner and did the "Pepsi Challenge" do you think the average passer-by would be able to tell ?

Probably not, but the average passer-by is not looking for a $2K+ optic that can operate beyond 2000 yards and would not be able to accurately evaluate the many necessary functions of each optic in regards to extreme range precision shooting.

I do however like the features of the vortex razor HD gen II. It is much easier to explain spending $2500 vs. $4000+ to the wife. Also I don't own a .375 cheytec and won't be shooting out to 3000 yards any time soon. so $4000+ equipment would not be justified for my application.
 
it is a "ground breaking leap forward" seems like a bit of a stretch.
For you, perhaps it is a stretch. For me, the zero stop mechanism and the parallax characteristics are found on no other scope. It is a huge departure from anything I'm familiar with, and I've owned/used nearly every high end scope on the market.

That is a good question, and there was nothing in your review that was inadequate. Maybe just a different way of looking at it.

I see that the TT525P and the PMII 5-25x25 have these similar features: *snip*
It is easy to focus on the similarities. There will always be more the same than is different, but it is those differences that truly set products apart. To acknowledge that which is same, without acknowledging that which is different, only tells one side of the story. From that perspective, it would be easy to support the argument you are trying to make. However, the facts don't support that argument. I have had several people in the office to evaluate the TT525P over the last week. They were all pretty switched-on with plenty of experience, and the response has been nothing but positive. You talked about what is the same, so lets talk about what is different. It's not the similarities that make products stand out, but their differences.

Zero Stop
S&B - You must use a hex key to adjust it.
TT - You use your fingers.
On one scope, you need to get a tool, and interface tiny screws. Do this enough, and you'll eventually drop that hex key. Losing it in the grass is not that fun when you have serious business to attend to. On the other scope, you use your fingers, and it takes a few seconds. No tool to drop, nothing to forget... you just do it. Sure, this isn't important to someone that shoots on a square range once a month... but I shoot nearly every day, at minimum once a week, and switch barrels as much as 15-20 times in a day depending on what I'm working on. Not everyone is in that position, but a lot of us are. This is the most intuitive and easy to set zero stop I've ever worked with. If there is another scope out there with a better system, what is the make/model of that scope?

Optical Design
I'm not talking glass quality, I'm talking your experience behind the scope. Glass quality could go either way, depending on the user. Both are top-tier. In optical design however, the TT525P is decidedly better than the S&B. I don't mean by a little bit, but in every respect by a wide margin. This is apparent to every single person I've had do a side-by-side comparison. Eyebox, parallax, eye relief through mag range, edge-to-edge clarity, true magnification range (lack of tunneling), reticle illumination, is all better on the TT than the S&B.

Physical Design
The TT has more travel in two turns than the S&B, and more on each turn. This is extremely important to those of us scoping ELR rifles. You want to engage targets at max range with a 375CT? Very few scopes will allow this on the turret. The illumination control doesn't prohibit mounting options as the S&B does. The turrets are larger in diameter, which provides a more widely spaced and easily seen/heard click.

I, and the people I've shown this scope to, are in a far better position to comment on what is the same or what is different than anyone else is. Those people's comments to me during their evaluation, have absolutely shredded the S&B AND premier. When they come in, I don't say much of anything... I just ploped them down at the table in front of a 4th story window where 3 DTA's sit with TT, S&B, and Premier for them to compare.

The deeper you drill down in specifics, the more differences you find. When you get under the hood, and actually look at the mechanics of each scope and how they operate... the S&B is absolutely decimated by the TT525P. From the aspect of the engineering and manufacturing techniques involved, the TT525P is the absolute cutting-edge state of the current art. They have taken the engineering design as far as manufacturing technologies would allow them to go while still being able to produce reliable and effective parts.

You guys don't like the price. I get it. Really, that's a decision you each need to make for yourself, and I'll respect your choice either way.

The comments that "its just another scope" or its "the same as this other scope" could not be further from the truth as it pertains to the facts. That may be how you see it, from your perspective, but that does not make it so. Something is either the same, or it isn't... and the TT525P is not the same as anything other than other TT525P's. Some aspects of it might be the same as other scopes, but it is the differences that separate them, not their similarities.

Now I've got some questions I'd like answers to. I know why I'm passionate about why I like the scope, and have explained it in as much detail as possible, drawing from my far-greater-than-average first hand experiences to draw and share my conclusions. Why are some of you so passionate about why you don't like it? I understand complaints of price, but if it is too expensive, why not simply choose to not buy it and move on? Isn't that enough? Is it unreasonable to expect men to withhold judgement until they have actually seen, or maybe even touched, the item they are so passionately displeased with? Would it be so bad for the industry as a whole to receive new products with a critical enthusiasm, instead of this all too frequent uninformed and hostile attitude? If they fail, let them fail. If you have something to say, say it... but say it in a way which resembles an remotely intellectual fashion.

So far, I've seen far more statements than questions in this thread. There are one of these things in the wild, and its at Primal Rights. I am available to any and all who have remotely intellectual questions. I'd think there are precious few whom are in a position to make any statements about this products capabilities on its own, or when compared to other products. Over the next few months, that will change, and I assure you that when people start receiving these scopes, much of what I've said will be echoed. I don't think I'm out of line to ask for a little civility and perspective in this thread until that happens. What does it hurt, to save your negative comments until you get some experience with the TT525P?
 
Last edited:
I do however like the features of the vortex razor HD gen II. It is much easier to explain spending $2500 vs. $4000+ to the wife. Also I don't own a .375 cheytec and won't be shooting out to 3000 yards any time soon. so $4000+ equipment would not be justified for my application.


Don't need a $4000+ optic to shoot to 3000 yards. Used an older NF NXS 5.5-22x56 on 17x and hit MOA sized target at 2500 yards without a problem with a 408 Chey Tac. Only reason we didn't shoot farther is that the 2700 and 3000 yard targets were knocked down. Could still see where they were though. As long as you have decent glass and enough elevation you can do it.
 
Don't need a $4000+ optic to shoot to 3000 yards. Used an older NF NXS 5.5-22x56 on 17x and hit MOA sized target at 2500 yards without a problem with a 408 Chey Tac. Only reason we didn't shoot farther is that the 2700 and 3000 yard targets were knocked down. Could still see where they were though. As long as you have decent glass and enough elevation you can do it.

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. There are many optics out there that are capable of producing the same results as the $4000+ optics. That's why it is hard to justify the expense for many consumers. It's the finite details in those optics that professional marksmen tend to look for and they may be able to justify the expense. But for someone like me to try to justify the expense would be a stretch.
 
As for the TT I would have liked to have seen yardage indicators on the parallax adjustment knob. This feature can be found on several optics and provides a quick reference for the shooter to be able to adjust for parallax.
 
As for the TT I would have liked to have seen yardage indicators on the parallax adjustment knob. This feature can be found on several optics and provides a quick reference for the shooter to be able to adjust for parallax.

I'll admit I miss those too on some of my optics that exclude them, but Greg already specifically addressed this:

2) As I suspected, the parallax knob was left without yardage indicators specifically because each persons eye will be slightly different, and what is parallax-free for one, will not be parallax free for the other. In order to have a truly parallax free setting, the user must look through the scope while making adjustments. Given how unbelievably forgiving the parallax is on these scopes, I do not see this as being an issue at all, as their design encourages proper usage of the scope.
 
I'll admit I miss those too on some of my optics that exclude them, but Greg already specifically addressed this:

I know he addressed it and I'm just pointing out that it's a feature that I like. It's good to have just as a reference.
 
I just ploped them down at the table in front of a 4th story window where 3 DTA's sit with TT, S&B, and Premier for them to compare.

A 4th story window is great, but how about out in the field? Does one of those scope stand above the other two in terms of hit probability? These design improvements are cool and all, but at the end of the day the most important thing is successfully interdicting targets. An improvement there would clearly be valuable.

I have a 5-25 Premier and I just don't think that scope is the limiting factor holding back my hit probability. Lots of other areas to invest in before the scope becomes a limit.
 
Have been watching this scope for a while and the limiting factor for me is the reticle options. After all the info and spec sheets are read, features listed, etc ... that's what will keep me from a purchase. When I got my first USO I thought that was an insane amount of $$$ to spend on a scope but you soon realize how much it increases you confidence in making a shot when you know you optic will perform. When I upgraded to a 5-25 PMII I was skeptical if it was worth $1000 more ... it was the little things that start becoming huge. In a game that's all about attention to detail, small things matter and extreme refinement cost $$$$. If they offered a mil hash MSR / GAP type reticle I would be on a preorder list. I do agree we are in a great place in all things optics currently.
 
That's kind of the point I was trying to make. There are many optics out there that are capable of producing the same results as the $4000+ optics. That's why it is hard to justify the expense for many consumers. It's the finite details in those optics that professional marksmen tend to look for and they may be able to justify the expense. But for someone like me to try to justify the expense would be a stretch.


But there is more to a rifle scope than just being able to see and hit a target. Some people will crank those knobs and power ring more than others. Some will bang their scope around more. Some will mount it on heavy recoiling rifles, others on .223's. Will the Vortex allow you 10 years of hard use? Doubt it. Will the new Steiner? I dunno. Why does Hensoldt use steel innards, better waterproofing, etc. than the commercial Zeiss line? Are milspec NF scopes not more expensive to make? Why?

Maybe this TT scope actually warrants the $4200 price tag and it is actually not arbitrary and not slip pricing or profit gouging.
 
But there is more to a rifle scope than just being able to see and hit a target. Some people will crank those knobs and power ring more than others. Some will bang their scope around more. Some will mount it on heavy recoiling rifles, others on .223's. Will the Vortex allow you 10 years of hard use? Doubt it. Will the new Steiner? I dunno. Why does Hensoldt use steel innards, better waterproofing, etc. than the commercial Zeiss line? Are milspec NF scopes not more expensive to make? Why?

Maybe this TT scope actually warrants the $4200 price tag and it is actually not arbitrary and not slip pricing or profit gouging.

I believe that's what I just said. I said the finite details are what makes a $4k plus optic what it is. I also stated I am not the shooter that needs those applications either. I'm not a sniper or a professional marksman. I just love to shoot more than I like golf so that was the hobby I chose. I love going to the range every weekend and putting led down range. My favorite sound is ding.

Furthermore, I believe the the price for the Tangent Theta is on par for what is featured on the optic. If it is an improvement over the premier, then the price is justified, if it isn't, then the price isn't justified. That assessment would have to be made by professional like Greg.

More reviews will come, and thanks to Greg we were able to get a comprehensive review rather quickly. If I ever find the need for an optic of this caliber, it will certainly be on the short list of options.

Still wondering why the video on TT's website only backed the turret cap a 1/4 turn to adjust the zero. Then in Greg's video he made several turns to adjust the zero. I am wondering if this caused the misalignment of the turret marks and indicator.
 
Last edited:
How can a scope review from a reputable person evolve into a peter bumpin contest ? It was a review and nothing more , take it for what it is or disagree ...but leave the chest thumping gorilla tactics on the sidelines ...
 
Still wondering why the video on TT's website only backed the turret cap a 1/4 turn to adjust the zero. Then in Greg's video he made several turns to adjust the zero. I am wondering if this caused the misalignment of the turret marks and indicator.
Per the manual it says "3 turns" if memory serves. I'll check again, but I'm fairly certain. Could be because mine has heavy clicks, and the one in the video does not. It most definitely did not cause the misalignment of the indicator to the scale. Turret doesn't work that way. It's pretty hard to get wrong.
 
End of thread:


nj72o4j.jpg
 
I think I'll take two of the new Razor's over one of these. Also as far as the lines not aligning perfectly.... for $4k that's not ever remotely close to being acceptable. Just my .02
 
what type of erector spring system is the TT utilizing? Is it still a single leaf as Premier? and what is it made from? Brass? Steel? Ti?
 
Yeah! And are they using carbide or some other exciting parts in there? What is the submersion spec? Can people skydive with one in sub-zero environments?
 
Yeah! And are they using carbide or some other exciting parts in there? What is the submersion spec? Can people skydive with one in sub-zero environments?

What I am asking are real world specs on a new system, not some mumbo jumbo voodoo with chicken bones. (NF is awesome huh?? yes they are..) NF are really proud of their erector spring system and rightfully so. They advertise a tempered Ti spring system with a tumble in a polishing system for days and so on. It would help to know what TT has done to improve over the old Premier system. The erector and spring system (not just the turrets) is the very heart of the targeting system.
 
Last edited:
I'll pose that question to TT on our next call. I would expect them to not tell me, as that would seem to fall clearly into IP territory, but I'll pose the question none the less. :)

My personal feelings on it, is that the return spring could be made from apple-flavored jello, as long as the scope tracks and returns perfect every time.
 
What I am asking are real world specs on a new system, not some mumbo jumbo voodoo with chicken bones. (NF is awesome huh?? yes they are..) NF are really proud of their erector spring system and rightfully so. They advertise a tempered Ti spring system with a tumble in a polishing system for days and so on. It would help to know what TT has done to improve over the old Premier system. The erector and spring system (not just the turrets) is the very heart of the targeting system.

Are you implying my question was not serious?

I expect a scope named "Professional Marksman" to perform in all sorts of hostile environments.

And I didn't ask if the erector spring was made out of brass, you did.
 
Are you implying my question was not serious?

I expect a scope named "Professional Marksman" to perform in all sorts of hostile environments.

And I didn't ask if the erector spring was made out of brass, you did.
Your question: Yeah! And are they using carbide or some other exciting parts in there? What is the submersion spec? Can people skydive with one in sub-zero environments?

And I suspect you and your scope/weapon system are expecting to be exfiltrated by air drop into enemy territory in sub zero temperatures and then dive into water to abysmal depths. Man I gotta know what your job is? Oh but I imagine something that exciting you would have to kill me if you told me?
 
I'll pose that question to TT on our next call. I would expect them to not tell me, as that would seem to fall clearly into IP territory, but I'll pose the question none the less. :)

My personal feelings on it, is that the return spring could be made from apple-flavored jello, as long as the scope tracks and returns perfect every time.

I have asked similar such ??s to Premier about their glass origin, lens set layout etc and got the IP speech.. and I understand some companies like to closely guard their IP. And other manufacturers are glad to tell you how and why their design is superior to X and Y mfr. At the end of the day you are right it could be made of Jello but true optics nerds like myself like to know the heart and soul of the products we invest so much of our hard earned cash into.
 
I have asked similar such ??s to Premier about their glass origin, lens set layout etc and got the IP speech.. and I understand some companies like to closely guard their IP. And other manufacturers are glad to tell you how and why their design is superior to X and Y mfr. At the end of the day you are right it could be made of Jello but true optics nerds like myself like to know the heart and soul of the products we invest so much of our hard earned cash into.
Not saying you shouldn't know if you want. Just saying that lots of companies do not disclose this type of information. Especially those on the cutting edge of design.
 
I can see that during development but once the product hits the street it's not anything they can keep a tight lid on. Anyone wanting the info from a competing company can get all the info they want for $4200 ;)
 
I can see that during development but once the product hits the street it's not anything they can keep a tight lid on. Anyone wanting the info from a competing company can get all the info they want for $4200 ;)

Benchmarking.
 
And I suspect you and your scope/weapon system are expecting to be exfiltrated by air drop into enemy territory in sub zero temperatures and then dive into water to abysmal depths. Man I gotta know what your job is? Oh but I imagine something that exciting you would have to kill me if you told me?

Why do you care about what I do?

Did I say I need all that?

Did I say everyone needs all that?

No I didn't.
 
Yea that copy crap happens all the time, the Chinese are world famous for it! Buy one unit, tear it down, and replicate it x1000000 with inferior materials and shitty QC. It's happened to Leupold and they were quite unhappy about it. It's only a matter of time before they do it again, however the market in the shooting world is very small. The chances of copycats in the scope manufacturing realm are pretty rare. Not to say that another maker might "borrow" an idea from a "cutting edge" intro design won't happen. I wouldn't put it past big producers to tear down and examine "the other guy's" shit to see if there is anything they can use.
 
Last edited:
I can see that during development but once the product hits the street it's not anything they can keep a tight lid on. Anyone wanting the info from a competing company can get all the info they want for $4200 ;)
Materials analysis will cost quite a bit more than that. Why make it easy on the IP thieves?
 
Materials analysis will cost quite a bit more than that. Why make it easy on the IP thieves?

Anyone going through that much to steal tech won't care but end users asking some questions about the product is a different thing. My point was it's not some secret technology once out on the open market and if someone is that interested then they should be able to know what's going on inside. Well as long as none of the parts are from "Nunya" LOL

I personally don't care that much and as long as it tracks and continues to do so I am happy.
 
I can see that during development but once the product hits the street it's not anything they can keep a tight lid on. Anyone wanting the info from a competing company can get all the info they want for $4200 ;)

You're pushing hard for a 'nunya' comment aren't you?

If the people who want to know details on things that may be close to IP then call the company directly. Why would you expect a dealer, on an open forum to be the gopher for you? Orkan's fielded more crap than he really ought to from people who just want to kick shit or have other interests.

What one outfit deems as a unique enough value prop to showcase their product another may feel it's worth keeping tabs on but will focus on the end use-case of the IP. There is no obligation and there should be no inference of anything negative about the product, if the company doesn't want to open the kimono on all aspects of their product. 99% of the people on this forum do not, cannot and will not fully understand the physics, chemistry and mechanical engineering of these products yet these asinine, idiot savant type investigations into the the inner machinations of a scope seem to take some prime order of importance.

I can't believe anyone would choose a Vortex over a TT because of the material used for 'spring-thingy'. I've seen more Vortex's take a total dump on a manicured grass range with nothing more aggressive being done to them them changing zero than I have any other scopes. My buddy had TWO of the same scopes take a shit within the same week. yes they replaced them in record time. That may be good CS or it also may be CHEAP FUCKING INVENTORY with low replacement value. So we hear from LL that Vortex has been going up the food chain in QA, great, we all seem to accept this with no issue, even Rob will allow them to sponsor him yet for some reason, something that looks like a Premier must be parsed, sliced, diced and DNA'd before anyone can accept.

It's a scope, it's expensive, if it's out of your price range, move on, if it's not, then call Orkan or TT and see what they're willing or able to discuss and then get on with your lives.
 
You're pushing hard for a 'nunya' comment aren't you?

If the people who want to know details on things that may be close to IP then call the company directly. Why would you expect a dealer, on an open forum to be the gopher for you? Orkan's fielded more crap than he really ought to from people who just want to kick shit or have other interests.

What one outfit deems as a unique enough value prop to showcase their product another may feel it's worth keeping tabs on but will focus on the end use-case of the IP. There is no obligation and there should be no inference of anything negative about the product, if the company doesn't want to open the kimono on all aspects of their product. 99% of the people on this forum do not, cannot and will not fully understand the physics, chemistry and mechanical engineering of these products yet these asinine, idiot savant type investigations into the the inner machinations of a scope seem to take some prime order of importance.

I can't believe anyone would choose a Vortex over a TT because of the material used for 'spring-thingy'. I've seen more Vortex's take a total dump on a manicured grass range with nothing more aggressive being done to them them changing zero than I have any other scopes. My buddy had TWO of the same scopes take a shit within the same week. yes they replaced them in record time. That may be good CS or it also may be CHEAP FUCKING INVENTORY with low replacement value. So we hear from LL that Vortex has been going up the food chain in QA, great, we all seem to accept this with no issue, even Rob will allow them to sponsor him yet for some reason, something that looks like a Premier must be parsed, sliced, diced and DNA'd before anyone can accept.

It's a scope, it's expensive, if it's out of your price range, move on, if it's not, then call Orkan or TT and see what they're willing or able to discuss and then get on with your lives.

Not pushing for anything. Just talking but maybe you should try some decaf ;)

Ok back to just reading as I have no dog in this fight other than being interested in optics and don;t want anyone else blowing a vessel over any comments.
 
I hope I'll get a chance to chime in soon, when mine arrives. With so many fine scopes available at different price points, I would think you would have to shoot with them all many times before you could make any valid comments. If that bothers you, as mentioned above, just move on!
 
This thread was good, then went to shit. And it goes back to being good again (lets see for how long). Cant we keep this mf'er positive for now. We'll see if its an actual game changer when it hits the hands of the consumers. If you don't like the price, just simply move on.
 
I think that when two 5-25 scopes with the same features hit the market and one costs 2x as much as the other it would be nice to know why.
 
I think that when two 5-25 scopes with the same features hit the market and one costs 2x as much as the other it would be nice to know why.

The only thing you need to know is what "The customer is expected to pay"
 
Last edited:
I think that when two 5-25 scopes with the same features hit the market and one costs 2x as much as the other it would be nice to know why.

I take it you are referring to the new Steiner. There are people in this world that equates quality with price. In all actuality the new Steiner could be just as good as the new TT and to some people it wouldn't matter they would still buy the TT for no other reason than it cost more so it has to be better. TT knows this and these are the people they are targeting.

One the other hand TT is clearly not trying to compete with Steiner. They are trying to compete with S&B and other scopes in the $4000 + range.
 
Yes your statement was kind of vague. What scope is identical to the TT?

"I think that when two 5-25 scopes with the same features hit the market and one costs 2x as much as the other it would be nice to know why."

That's what he wrote.

I think that he's talking about comparing two 5-25x56 type premium scopes to one another and if one is $4200 and the other is $3000, what might those mechanical/physical differences be, causing a pricing disparity, since they both operate at the same magnification and objective size specs.

Chris
 
What about the Burris 5-25x, LOL

That is what $1500, then you have the Steiner, then you have the NF BEAST, S&B, & then you have TT ...

I guess you can also split hairs and ask, what about 6-24x, or 4-27x, 3-26x, 3-27x,4-30x, OH WAIT !, 5-20x, 3-20x, etc.

Some people have a very odd view of the things.