Rifle Scopes Top tier scope recommendation

#51
91Eunozs said:
Honest question because I have almost zero experience even eyeballing them, let alone shooting with them, but has ZCO finally surpassed TT for top dog Alpha scope?

I have a couple S&B scopes and LOVE them, as well as a couple mid-tier Nightforce, one Swarovski and one Zeiss scope, plus quite a few Leupolds for comparison, but finally looking for new glass for my 280AI. I’m leaning towards another S&B (probably a 6-36), but wondering about current thoughts on the latest offerings from ZCO and TT.
Click to expand...
small world, I'm thinking about a scope for my 280AI this season myself. what load are you shooting? mine likes the factory 160 gr nosler partitions, but i might work up a load with the Barnes TTSX, i keep hearing the 140 gr is the sweet spot for the 280ai. I'm still on the fence about the scope I want to put on there. I'm hunting big whitetail and hopefully elk in the near future. I'm looking at more of a mid range scope, my shots are 200-600 yards, and low light is always a factor. I'll post a couple i've been thinking about below. As for Schmidt and Bender, I have a 1.5-8x42 on my 30.06 browning blr, and I like it, schmidt has some awesome glass, but things are kind of in flux for them right now from my perspective, so personally i'm going to wait and see what happens before i invest in another schmidt. to my eye, i like the zco better than the TT, but different strokes.



in no real order, I like to shoot moa scopes when i'm hunting and mil if i'm taking a class or if i get lucky and am able to shoot a match, I can use either system well enough to speak to it.


https://cstactical.com/swarovski-z8i-3-5-28x50-4w-i-68406/

I have a 3-18x50 z6i on my 300 win mag, and I feel it's a great all around rifle/scope, sure 300 wm is large for some applications, but I've become very proficient with it, and I have a custom ballistic turret so it's a no brainer when it comes to distance shots. I like the reticle, I had a tiny bit of input when it was being developed, and it matches the custom ballistic turret. I feel this is the next iteration of that scope, the weight is good and it has enough adjustment to do what i need to with it. only drawback is it's second focal, but I personally don't mind it for hunting applications. it's got a 30mm tube and is one of the lighter scopes of the one's I'm thinking about, which could become a larger factor to consider if I start hunting in tougher terrain and in mountains.


Optically this scope is top tier and i like everything about it. playing with one in low light I was very impressed. the 36mm tube is a little large, but the optical performance alone makes this a big contender for me. close range I feel you could get on target and i felt I could do well if i had to make a quick shot with the scope on low magnification. I like the way the turrets felt, the parallax, and viewing at distance was a no brainer


I shot an nxs 5.5-22x56 moar for a long time, really enjoyed it, shot it a lot and killed a few deer with it. this is a step way up from that scope, and gives better performance on the low end in case there is a close shot and better optical performance. I've always been impressed with these scopes, ever since I saw the first one years ago. could get a custom turret for it, I'm familiar and comfortable with these scopes, and I like the reticle having used it a good bit already.


I'm trying to get my hands on one of these, I had an older victory diavari 3-12x56 on a rifle I sold a few years ago out of necessity and I really like it, i'd be interested to see one of these new scopes in action and looking at specifications alone, seems like it could be a really interesting option.


for my purposes, i also looked at the lht https://cstactical.com/vortex-razor-lht-4-5-22x50-ffp-xlr-2-moa-rzr-42201/ I've got several buddies and customer's using the lht scopes, and I have one on a 270, I've been very pleased with mine. haven't killed anything with it yet, but that's my fault, not the rifles.
 
#52
kthomas said:
Discourse about scopes is polluted by people seeking confirmation on their $5k+ purchases. A lot of petty and asinine comments when it comes to this subject.

Also, $5k+ for a scope these days is crazy. Law of diminishing returns is incredibly applicable here.
Click to expand...
Yep.
They all think a 6000 scope is a requirement. I mean true, 6000 scopes have incredible pictures, but they break too. Not as often but they do. What people confuse is whether or not they're a requirement in doing what they do. The answer is obviously not, or there wouldnt be people out there making 1300 meter shots with lower end scopes, or winning PRS matches with something other than a zco or tangent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal and kthomas
#53
Basic user said:
Yep.
They all think a 6000 scope is a requirement. I mean true, 6000 scopes have incredible pictures, but they break too. Not as often but they do. What people confuse is whether or not they're a requirement in doing what they do. The answer is obviously not, or there wouldnt be people out there making 1300 meter shots with lower end scopes, or winning PRS matches with something other than a zco or tangent.
Click to expand...
There is a point of diminishing returns, but you pay for the additional performance at the margins. In my experience people aren't spending that kind of money for ego, generally if you are going to that level of optics, there is a very specific reason for it and it wasn't met until the end user got to that level. years ago scopes with a consistent zero stop started at 2k, so to get that you had to invest at least that much. things have certainly changed and move forward for the better.

all that said, you'll only know what you need or best suits your application and your eyes by getting behind the optic. I've always said different eyes see and perceive things differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic user
#54
JayOpticspecialist said:
There is a point of diminishing returns, but you pay for the additional performance at the margins. In my experience people aren't spending that kind of money for ego, generally if you are going to that level of optics, there is a very specific reason for it and it wasn't met until the end user got to that level. years ago scopes with a consistent zero stop started at 2k, so to get that you had to invest at least that much. things have certainly changed and move forward for the better.

all that said, you'll only know what you need or best suits your application and your eyes by getting behind the optic. I've always said different eyes see and perceive things differently.
Click to expand...
Yea, you do have to get behind the optic and glass field to make a good judge if it suits your needs. ALTHOUGH, (of course each person's experiences very) I find most people with 6000 dollar scopes dont really need them. They buy them because they can. No different than all the ferrari and vette drivers on my local cruise strip. NONE of them race. Defeating the ENTIRE POINT of spending all that money for horsepower they'll never use. 98% of difficult shots in competitions can be made with a 2500 dollar scope. That extra 2500 dollars is for nothing but that last little shot that's super hard to see due to resolution in the mirage or limited light conditions. That's fine; if you have the money ya mind as well spend it on something fun lol.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount
#55
91Eunozs said:
Honest question because I have almost zero experience even eyeballing them, let alone shooting with them, but has ZCO finally surpassed TT for top dog Alpha scope?

I have a couple S&B scopes and LOVE them, as well as a couple mid-tier Nightforce, one Swarovski and one Zeiss scope, plus quite a few Leupolds for comparison, but finally looking for new glass for my 280AI. I’m leaning towards another S&B (probably a 6-36), but wondering about current thoughts on the latest offerings from ZCO and TT.
Click to expand...
You're going to get many different answers to that question. Ultimately they are so close that really it comes down to the individuals eyes and what features guys prioritize. For me my eyes prefer the colors /coatings on the tt more but the zco aren't holding anything back, just personal preference. Alot of guys the two are splitting hairs but zco being cheaper, especially on the used market, you're seeing more guys lean that way....doesn't hurt that they have better reticles (had to throw in a bit of personal bias 😂)
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal, JayOpticspecialist and 91Eunozs
#56
(
Click to expand...

JayOpticspecialist said:
small world, I'm thinking about a scope for my 280AI this season myself. what load are you shooting? mine likes the factory 160 gr nosler partitions, but i might work up a load with the Barnes TTSX, i keep hearing the 140 gr is the sweet spot for the 280ai. I'm still on the fence about the scope I want to put on there. I'm hunting big whitetail and hopefully elk in the near future. I'm looking at more of a mid range scope, my shots are 200-600 yards, and low light is always a factor. I'll post a couple i've been thinking about below. As for Schmidt and Bender, I have a 1.5-8x42 on my 30.06 browning blr, and I like it, schmidt has some awesome glass, but things are kind of in flux for them right now from my perspective, so personally i'm going to wait and see what happens before i invest in another schmidt. to my eye, i like the zco better than the TT, but different strokes.



in no real order, I like to shoot moa scopes when i'm hunting and mil if i'm taking a class or if i get lucky and am able to shoot a match, I can use either system well enough to speak to it.


https://cstactical.com/swarovski-z8i-3-5-28x50-4w-i-68406/

I have a 3-18x50 z6i on my 300 win mag, and I feel it's a great all around rifle/scope, sure 300 wm is large for some applications, but I've become very proficient with it, and I have a custom ballistic turret so it's a no brainer when it comes to distance shots. I like the reticle, I had a tiny bit of input when it was being developed, and it matches the custom ballistic turret. I feel this is the next iteration of that scope, the weight is good and it has enough adjustment to do what i need to with it. only drawback is it's second focal, but I personally don't mind it for hunting applications. it's got a 30mm tube and is one of the lighter scopes of the one's I'm thinking about, which could become a larger factor to consider if I start hunting in tougher terrain and in mountains.


Optically this scope is top tier and i like everything about it. playing with one in low light I was very impressed. the 36mm tube is a little large, but the optical performance alone makes this a big contender for me. close range I feel you could get on target and i felt I could do well if i had to make a quick shot with the scope on low magnification. I like the way the turrets felt, the parallax, and viewing at distance was a no brainer


I shot an nxs 5.5-22x56 moar for a long time, really enjoyed it, shot it a lot and killed a few deer with it. this is a step way up from that scope, and gives better performance on the low end in case there is a close shot and better optical performance. I've always been impressed with these scopes, ever since I saw the first one years ago. could get a custom turret for it, I'm familiar and comfortable with these scopes, and I like the reticle having used it a good bit already.


I'm trying to get my hands on one of these, I had an older victory diavari 3-12x56 on a rifle I sold a few years ago out of necessity and I really like it, i'd be interested to see one of these new scopes in action and looking at specifications alone, seems like it could be a really interesting option.


for my purposes, i also looked at the lht https://cstactical.com/vortex-razor-lht-4-5-22x50-ffp-xlr-2-moa-rzr-42201/ I've got several buddies and customer's using the lht scopes, and I have one on a 270, I've been very pleased with mine. haven't killed anything with it yet, but that's my fault, not the rifles.
Click to expand...
Same, factory 160s (or whatever that white-tipped ammo is) is the only ammo I’ve shot anything other than paper with (several pigs and a couple deer), but looking at other bullets to work up some loads as soon as I can find some time.

Edit: I am looking forward to trying out these 168 Bergers though…wondering how it’ll perform compared vs. my favorite 168gr load in .308

i-H7j84fL-X4.jpg


i-BNT7sW4-X4.jpg



Ran an older Leupy that was on this receiver when it had its original 30-06 barrel for awhile, but currently have a Zeiss 5-25 on there:

i-QTPhGbp-X4.jpg


I also prefer MOA for hunting.

5-25(ish) is honestly plenty for my needs, but this rifle is capable of much longer shots than I typically take and it’d be nice to have the right glass to stretch its legs…and my eyes ain’t what they used to be either, so I’ll take all the help I can get! LoL
 
Last edited:
#58
I don’t think everyone is looking for confirmation on them buying a fancy scope (and just saying things to make themselves feel better about it)… sometimes one just has to spend what it takes if they see the thing they want.

I’d argue that the most expensive thing we burn in this sport is our time. No matter how wealthy guys are, none of us is getting the time we put into this shit back, and time is running out on us all, so it’s all precious and valuable. So in a way, I’d argue it’d be kind of dumb to not shoot whatever scope floats your boat (if you can afford to). YOLO!

Spending a couple more bucks (or a couple thousand) to get exactly what you want isn’t just some flex, it’s just choosing to get what you want rather than settling for what you have. The same thing applies whether it’s scopes, guitars, or cars/trucks. The whole “diminishing returns” argument isn’t even relevant when it comes to this kind of stuff IMHO.

This shit is supposed to be fun, buy whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: CStroud, StephenShivers, Stoweit and 3 others
#62
Harman117 said:
This video by Area 419 does an excellent job at comparing some of the top scopes currently on the market:



The video allows you to see the large advantage in FOV the 540i has over it's competitors
Click to expand...



You can’t include part one without part two on @koshkin channel 🙂

Richard


 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal and Harman117
#63
I had great eyesight when I was young, between my twenties and 60's I wrongly assumed my eyes wouldn't change (very much) and didn't spend the "sweat equity" and due diligence to safeguard my eyesight, which as a photographer and gunowner was a big mistake.

I had glaucoma and didn't know it, increasingly severe cataracts, and I was heading toward blindness and because my brain was still telling me that my eyesight wasn't as bad as it was I kept putting off having my eyes examined.

They put the glaucoma they discovered to sleep with small safety valves in each eyeball to relieve the pressure when they did my cataract surgeries, and the pressure in my eyeballs has stabilized. There is no cure for much of the damage glaucoma does to your eyeballs once the damage is done it's done, and if you wait until the damage is evident, it's too late, it's one of those where you don't notice the damage until too late.

The point I'm trying to make is don't make the mistake I made which was paying too much attention to the specs/performance of my cameras/guns/toys and not to my eyesight. Glaucoma will start to destroy your optic nerve starting w/your side vision, very slowlly, year after year, you'll only notice it after extensive damage.

You can find out you've got glaucoma before you go completely blind and if it's too late/past the point of no return, you'll still go completely blind.

If memory serves I believe eye surgeons recommend getting your eyes examined every 2 years even though it might take 5-10 years for a disease to ravage your eyesight where you'll notice the difference.

If your brain has fooled you into believing your eyesight is better than it really is, then buying a 6 grand optic is a waste of money,
 
Last edited:
#65
CK1.0 said:
I don’t think everyone is looking for confirmation on them buying a fancy scope (and just saying things to make themselves feel better about it)… sometimes one just has to spend what it takes if they see the thing they want.

I’d argue that the most expensive thing we burn in this sport is our time. No matter how wealthy guys are, none of us is getting the time we put into this shit back, and time is running out on us all, so it’s all precious and valuable. So in a way, I’d argue it’d be kind of dumb to not shoot whatever scope floats your boat (if you can afford to). YOLO!

Spending a couple more bucks (or a couple thousand) to get exactly what you want isn’t just some flex, it’s just choosing to get what you want rather than settling for what you have. The same thing applies whether it’s scopes, guitars, or cars/trucks. The whole “diminishing returns” argument isn’t even relevant when it comes to this kind of stuff IMHO.

This shit is supposed to be fun, buy whatever you want.
Click to expand...
True, but I think some of the guys on here were trying to clarify the difference between want and need. Some try to justify their expensive purchases by trying to convincing others that it was 'needed'. I think everyone here deserves to get the optic they want. But trying to convince others and themselves it was 'needed' is another point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal and 91Eunozs
#66
Bacarrat said:
Got a ZCO 5-27 the other month. Frankly, not a huge fan of it. MPTC2 Reticle is too thick at max power IMO, and I hate locking turrets. At the high end of optics, glass quality is very subjective. Hate on me all you want, I still prefer the S&B PMII and NF ATACR. Looked through a new March PRS scope recently and was very impressed with it. That might be my next scope I try.
Click to expand...
I hate the locking turrets too, but that is an insanely easy fix...although I now can't find who makes the plastic split rings that fit around the turret to prevent it from locking. Have them on almost every scope with a locking turret.
 
#67
CroweMan said:
So I currently run an element theos, and it’s great! But I’ve been going back and forth on a zco or kahles. I’m thinking either the 527 or 540i. What are opinions on reticle thickness? I tried a vortex razor 3, but it was too thin for my eyes. The theos reticle (thickness/presence) is what I’d like to have if possible. Seems maybe zco does this a bit better? Any help would be great as the guys I shoot with don’t run either scope. Primarily razor gen 3’s or atacr on the more premium side.
Click to expand...
ZCO, IMO
 
#68
Fig said:
I hate the locking turrets too, but that is an insanely easy fix...although I now can't find who makes the plastic split rings that fit around the turret to prevent it from locking. Have them on almost every scope with a locking turret.
Click to expand...
MKM machine makes them. My way around locking turrets is to not lock them down. And yes, I know you can send it to ZCO to have that feature removed.
 
#69
91Eunozs said:
Honest question because I have almost zero experience even eyeballing them, let alone shooting with them, but has ZCO finally surpassed TT for top dog Alpha scope?

I have a couple S&B scopes and LOVE them, as well as a couple mid-tier Nightforce, one Swarovski and one Zeiss scope, plus quite a few Leupolds for comparison, but finally looking for new glass for my 280AI. I’m leaning towards another S&B (probably a 6-36), but wondering about current thoughts on the latest offerings from ZCO and TT.
Click to expand...

My subjective opinion owning many of both, I still prefer TT if forced to rank.

Turrets
Tool less rezero.
My preferred reticle. Gen3
My eye feels the TT has more forgiving eyebox on higher mag than the 5-27 ZCO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal, kthomas and 91Eunozs
#71
Man, Kahles was never on my radar… interesting to see how well that new model did vs. the others. Have to see if I can find one around here to look through before I make my decision.

S&B is the easy button for me because I have a couple and love the way they work for my needs. Heavy as hell, but great glass for my eyes.

ZCO and TT are in the running just because I’ve always wanted one just to see what the hype’s all about, but never had the $ … or at least the ability to justify spending that much money on a scope in the past.

Very surprised that Kahles has made up so much ground vs. the top tier scopes.
 
#73
kthomas said:
Discourse about scopes is polluted by people seeking confirmation on their $5k+ purchases. A lot of petty and asinine comments when it comes to this subject.

Also, $5k+ for a scope these days is crazy. Law of diminishing returns is incredibly applicable here.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I mean, I've spent $5K for a scope before... but it let me shoot things I needed to kill at night.

$5K for a day optic for something that you are going to shoot between the hours of 9am and 6pm... that is just as much a flex as anything. Nothing wrong with flexing if you can either. Just don't blow hot air trying to make it sound like a necessity.

*** Edited to add: Nothing wrong for paying more for what you want either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas and roostercogburn98
#74
91Eunozs said:
Man, Kahles was never on my radar… interesting to see how well that new model did vs. the others. Have to see if I can find one around here to look through before I make my decision.

S&B is the easy button for me because I have a couple and love the way they work for my needs. Heavy as hell, but great glass for my eyes.

ZCO and TT are in the running just because I’ve always wanted one just to see what the hype’s all about, but never had the $ … or at least the ability to justify spending that much money on a scope in the past.

Very surprised that Kahles has made up so much ground vs. the top tier scopes.
Click to expand...
For me, my ZCO 527 seemed clearer and easier to get behind than my PMII. Also liked the turrets, reticle and other shit better as well. Sold it and bought another 527
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs
#75
You want to know honest thoughts from someone with both? From someone that has ZERO ties to either company and paid for them in full with their own money? Here’s my thoughts. The ZCO gang can come at me all they want. These are my scopes and my observations side by side, back to back.

I think the ZCO just looks more pleasing aesthetically. The turrets. The knobs. The ocular. It just looks cool. The K is quite plain by comparison. And the huge ocular makes it look like a thermal not a precision rifle scope.

Glass: The glass is SLIGHTLY better on the ZCO. The resolution and detail is better. Paint flecks, texture of the steel etc. Field of view is much better with the K. Depth of field is better with the K as well. This greater depth of field makes mirage easier to see. And more forgiving on parallax. Eyebox is better on the K except at the very top end of the magnification (35-40x) where it does tighten up a bit.

Controls. I think the smoothness and tension of the K DLR turrets are heavenly. Definitely better than the 15mil ZCO turret. I’ve never felt a 10mil ZCO. The parallax control on the K truly is a better system. It is faster and more intuitive. The LSW is also more intuitive. I dialed windage on the clock several times at the match and that was my very first time. That is only going to get more natural. I actually prefer the non locking ocular focus on the K as with aging, stress, fatigue, etc are eyes are never constant. Being able to quickly get the ocular set perfect each day or mid match makes a difference.

Non tree reticle: Absolutely no issue. If you are milling targets beforehand, you know where your wind hold falls on the plate. I will start thinking in terms of 1/4 plate. “Left 1/4 or left 1/2 or left full (edge) for example. If it ends up off plate I will dial windage. Or at least dial a base wind in that gets me back on plate. I DO see more mirage flowing along the bottom of the image. That could be both the greater depth of field as well as the lack of tree clogging the view. I wish the reticle illuminated the mil numbers and I wish the reticle had floating dots at the even mils like the Mpct2x or Mil-c/xt.

Field of view is more and it matters. Previously i shot stages at 15-18 power. I shot my first match with the K at 25+ and had no issue finding and confirming targets. Shooting at higher power is huge. You see more of everything. The wide field of view makes this transition much easier.

Bottom line, targets are getting smaller. The pros dial 99% of targets because it offers the most precise aiming when you are on your horizontal AND vertical stadia. The Kahles controls are in my opinion the real “game changer”. The LSW and parallax spinner are intuitive and make dialing on the clock effortless. If you want to dial more and run at a higher magnification, the Kahles definitely makes this easier than other scopes. Optic nerds can debate micro contrast and edge to edge this or that or chromatic aberration or any other buzz word they want to throw at it. For me, when I look through the scope, they both look amazing. It’s only after very deliberate study that the slighter better resolution of the 527 is noticeable. The huge field of view of the K540 however is instantly apparent.

ZCO 527 MPCT2x 15NLE.
Kahles K540i DLR SKMR+
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7976.jpeg
    IMG_7976.jpeg
    3.9 MB · Views: 40
  • IMG_7974.jpeg
    IMG_7974.jpeg
    2.7 MB · Views: 40
  • IMG_7975.jpeg
    IMG_7975.jpeg
    2.9 MB · Views: 40
  • Like
Reactions: saum14, GeoDude, JaoeyP and 5 others
#76
I’d still say that the Gen III Razor is the best value for the money. Especially with a military discount or used. Great glass, positive turrets, you could beat whatever you missed the shot on to death with it if you can catch it. If someone ever missed a shot, it was not because of the Razor glass.

I did have to return an early one due to a stripped turret, but still a huge fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CK1.0
#77
ZCOklahoma said:
I’d still say that the Gen III Razor is the best value for the money. Especially with a military discount or used. Great glass, positive turrets, you could beat whatever you missed the shot on to death with it if you can catch it. If someone ever missed a shot, it was not because of the Razor glass.

I did have to return an early one due to a stripped turret, but still a huge fan.
Click to expand...

I agree. IMO the RG3 is like the “level up” in glass that most guys can swing, and honestly, it really doesn’t get that much better at any price.

If it wasn’t for the “one size fits most” xmas tree reticle, I’d still be shooting one. And if Vortex were to release a version with a simpler reticle (without a tree) I’d have to get another one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal and kthomas
#78
CK1.0 said:
I agree. IMO the RG3 is like the “level up” in glass that most guys can swing, and honestly, it really doesn’t get that much better at any price.

If it wasn’t for the “one size fits most” xmas tree reticle, I’d still be shooting one. And if Vortex were to release a version with a simpler reticle (without a tree) I’d have to get another one.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’d like to see a reticle that has 2 MiL above the dot and either no tree or .2 marks of different lengths to make them more distinguishable
 
  • Like
Reactions: CK1.0
#80
CroweMan said:
It’s been really helpful to keep up with everyone’s thoughts and takes! Something that has peaked my interest is the new March prs scope…seems to have great glass quality, kahles level fov, and great reticle.
Click to expand...
I haven’t personally looked through one but know exceptional shooters/competitors that have and all reviews have been positive.
 
#81
Basic user said:
Yep.
They all think a 6000 scope is a requirement. I mean true, 6000 scopes have incredible pictures, but they break too. Not as often but they do. What people confuse is whether or not they're a requirement in doing what they do. The answer is obviously not, or there wouldnt be people out there making 1300 meter shots with lower end scopes, or winning PRS matches with something other than a zco or tangent.
Click to expand...
When I first started shooting rifles, and went reading about scopes, I had a weird suspicion that some (or many) folks imagine they need the crisp resolution that you'd see in an Ansel Adams gigantic plate photograph properly developed & printed. "Stunning" maybe they would want. But is that required to make the shot? If you are so focused on a "stunning glass" image, where's the target in that stunning image and how critical is the stunningness?

I have crappy distance vision and I like a nice clean picture, but can't blame my Zeiss LRP S3 for "sub-par glass" if I miss a shot or wind call.
 
#82
Chopping Broccoli said:
You want to know honest thoughts from someone with both? From someone that has ZERO ties to either company and paid for them in full with their own money? Here’s my thoughts. The ZCO gang can come at me all they want. These are my scopes and my observations side by side, back to back.

I think the ZCO just looks more pleasing aesthetically. The turrets. The knobs. The ocular. It just looks cool. The K is quite plain by comparison. And the huge ocular makes it look like a thermal not a precision rifle scope.

Glass: The glass is SLIGHTLY better on the ZCO. The resolution and detail is better. Paint flecks, texture of the steel etc. Field of view is much better with the K. Depth of field is better with the K as well. This greater depth of field makes mirage easier to see. And more forgiving on parallax. Eyebox is better on the K except at the very top end of the magnification (35-40x) where it does tighten up a bit.

Controls. I think the smoothness and tension of the K DLR turrets are heavenly. Definitely better than the 15mil ZCO turret. I’ve never felt a 10mil ZCO. The parallax control on the K truly is a better system. It is faster and more intuitive. The LSW is also more intuitive. I dialed windage on the clock several times at the match and that was my very first time. That is only going to get more natural. I actually prefer the non locking ocular focus on the K as with aging, stress, fatigue, etc are eyes are never constant. Being able to quickly get the ocular set perfect each day or mid match makes a difference.

Non tree reticle: Absolutely no issue. If you are milling targets beforehand, you know where your wind hold falls on the plate. I will start thinking in terms of 1/4 plate. “Left 1/4 or left 1/2 or left full (edge) for example. If it ends up off plate I will dial windage. Or at least dial a base wind in that gets me back on plate. I DO see more mirage flowing along the bottom of the image. That could be both the greater depth of field as well as the lack of tree clogging the view. I wish the reticle illuminated the mil numbers and I wish the reticle had floating dots at the even mils like the Mpct2x or Mil-c/xt.

Field of view is more and it matters. Previously i shot stages at 15-18 power. I shot my first match with the K at 25+ and had no issue finding and confirming targets. Shooting at higher power is huge. You see more of everything. The wide field of view makes this transition much easier.

Bottom line, targets are getting smaller. The pros dial 99% of targets because it offers the most precise aiming when you are on your horizontal AND vertical stadia. The Kahles controls are in my opinion the real “game changer”. The LSW and parallax spinner are intuitive and make dialing on the clock effortless. If you want to dial more and run at a higher magnification, the Kahles definitely makes this easier than other scopes. Optic nerds can debate micro contrast and edge to edge this or that or chromatic aberration or any other buzz word they want to throw at it. For me, when I look through the scope, they both look amazing. It’s only after very deliberate study that the slighter better resolution of the 527 is noticeable. The huge field of view of the K540 however is instantly apparent.

ZCO 527 MPCT2x 15NLE.
Kahles K540i DLR SKMR+
Click to expand...
1. Dude your rigs look freaking suuuuhhhhweeet. Love me some Manners.
2. Awesome comparison.
3. I am asking this out of genuine curiosity and since your scopes are on rimfire rifles- what distance have you compared your two scopes at?
 
#83
flogxal said:
When I first started shooting rifles, and went reading about scopes, I had a weird suspicion that some (or many) folks imagine they need the crisp resolution that you'd see in an Ansel Adams gigantic plate photograph properly developed & printed. "Stunning" maybe they would want. But is that required to make the shot? If you are so focused on a "stunning glass" image, where's the target in that stunning image and how critical is the stunningness?

I have crappy distance vision and I like a nice clean picture, but can't blame my Zeiss LRP S3 for "sub-par glass" if I miss a shot or wind call.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really needs a "stunning image", but things like greater depth-of-field, greater ability to cut through mirage, and superior performance in less than ideal lighting conditions all add up and become huge when we're out there trying to make corrections that'd be measured in inches or less on relatively small plates parked out at ~400-1300 yards (especially if it's a beat-up greyed-out plate hiding in the shade or something)...

In the words of the maestro (Yngwie Malmsteen): "More is more." Or, as we used to say back when I was heavy into chasing that GM card in USPSA: "Buy as much skill as you can afford." :p

I tend to think that once you reach a certain tier with glass, they're all good enough, but there are different choices out there that some guys are going to gravitate towards once they develop a taste for what works best for them with their eyes and their brain, and maybe just as they become more picky about want they want.

IMHO, it's a compromise between performance, reliability, and whatever princess-and-the-pea features a guy wants, and sometimes getting all of those things gets expensive.

For me, it became all about the reticle that my eyes/brain liked. I had been shooting RG3s for a while and wanted to try a simpler, more "open" reticle, but at the time, my only choices were: TT JTAC ($$$$$), ZCO MPCT-1X ($$$$), or Leupold MK4HD PR-3MIL ($$).

Well, first I tried the MK4HD because it was the most affordable and then quickly got reminded the hard way that sometimes you do get what you pay for, and after 3 fucked up scopes in a row that wouldn't track for shit, and all that lost time and wasted rounds seemingly constantly swapping scopes and rezeroing and getting told by Leupold to hang on for weeks and weeks because "it's hunting season and we're a little backed up" (when it's always fucking hunting season 🤦‍♂️), I broke down and bought the ZCO. But to be honest, the MK4HD did show me that my hunch was right and the less cluttered reticle worked better for me, so in a way it did kind of serve its purpose for me (but if it wasn't a POS I'd have been fine with running the Leupold and being a few grand wealthier too).

Now the Kahles and March are the new kids on the block and offer non-tree/simpler reticles too, along with their massive FOV upgrades... But with my newfound Leupold-PTSD, reliability and fast Customer Service turnaround is something I'll never take lightly again. And the jury is still out on both of those options, as turnaround on an issue with a ZCO is about a week or so (IF you ever even have an issue), and I'm not convinced I trust the Kahles or March just yet, knowing they'd need to head back to Austria/Japan and back, so time will tell.

Plus, YMMV, but I'm no longer willing to be an early adopter when it comes to expensive rifle shit. If I'm dropping $4k+, I don't necessarily care if it's the latest and greatest as long as it's universally accepted as top-shelf/industry-standard, or at least not nearly as much as I care about it being rock solid (undoubtedly far closer to bombproof than me being someone's beta-tester).
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal and R_A_W
#87
Chopping Broccoli said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...

I was kidding not kidding as they say.

I know a dude who’s won several bigger national level NRL22 matches and then placed somewhere in the top 25 at the annual Kahles match at K&M a few years back, it being his first pro-level centerfire match… so I don’t completely discount what guys learn from rimfire transferring to centerfire. But there also wasn’t any wind that year and from what I heard nobody had to hold off a plate in space all weekend, and maybe a bit of beginners luck was involved because I don’t think he’s finished that high since (which probably just has more to do with him shooting more rimfire).

That said, there’s zero recoil with rimfire (especially with many of the rigs weighing 20+lbs and/or as much as centerfire PRS rigs), and itty bitty or not, the targets are way closer for the most part (guys aren’t shooting out to 1000 yards on the regular with .22LRs unless I’ve missed something), NPA doesn’t matter as much, and that’s just the start, there’s a whole long list of things that make it different from centerfire.

I don’t need to litigate it, rimfire inside ~400 yards (usually more like inside 200) and centerfire out to 1000+ are not the same, that’s just how it is.

IDK, I tend to make most of my observations about differences in glass when shooting targets between 600-1250 yards on average, IDK if I’d even notice a difference between the top tier glass inside that.
 
#88
Nothing you said above has anything to do with the ability to evaluate optical performance of an alpha class optic….which is what this thread is about.

Had I displayed them side by side on a tripod would you feel less threatened?

Kidding not kidding.
 
#89
Chopping Broccoli said:
Nothing you said above has anything to do with the ability to evaluate optical performance of an alpha class optic….which is what this thread is about.

Had I displayed them side by side on a tripod would you feel less threatened?

Kidding not kidding.
Click to expand...

It’s not the same, get over it.

Besides, airguns are the new .22s… 😝
 
#91
Chopping Broccoli said:
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD show me where I EVER compared centerfire to rimfire? You’re the only one so threatened by the mere sight of a rimfire that feels the need to proclaim your supremacy.

I compared optics. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...

Dude, do you see a lot of mirage at ~25-200 yards? I don’t. See many targets obscured by shade or with the sun directly behind them at rimfire matches? I don’t.

It’s different performance envelopes, and when it comes to glass, guys shooting longer distance targets and tracking shots under recoil are going to notice and look for different things than guys shooting relatively crisp, close range targets, while not even having to consider how things perform or what things look like under recoil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal
#92
LMAO. Be sure and tell koshkin and Area 419 that their optic tests are bunk because they don’t consider recoil. Lmao.

IMG_7978.png


You sure make a lot of assumptions based on a picture of a nice scope mounted on a rimfire. The mere sight of such has so triggered you that you completely lose your mind. You assume I haven’t compared at longer ranges. You assume I haven’t shot centerfire. You assume these scopes haven’t been used on a centerfire. You assume my personal opinions are flawed. Because of what? A picture of a scope on a rifle in my shop.

Here’s the thing dude, opinions are personal and these are mine. You can disagree with them but until you own them both side by side and can compare them for yourself…you’re just assuming or regurgitating something you’ve overheard.

And by the way, I’ve had a ZCO shit the bed so don’t assume that choice immunizes you from failure.

Watch me shoot a CENTERFIRE with a lowly XRS3. Sorry I haven’t made any videos with the ZCO or K540 on a centerfire. Maybe then I’d be qualified to offer my OWN OPINION of them.

 

Attachments

  • IMG_5496.jpeg
    IMG_5496.jpeg
    185 KB · Views: 17
#93
I think the point is more that refinement at targets beyond 500-600yds is not even in the running with .22LR, and CK1.0 has been emphasizing that the differences of "top tier" scopes, even if subtle, tend to show in longer ranges with difficult light/contrast.

In other words, even if you are a top shooter in rimfire PRS, and you like your "top tier" glass, is it really showing its "top tier" status at shorter ranges? That's not an insult to you, to any scope, or to rimfire shooters.
 
#94
flogxal said:
I think the point is more that refinement at targets beyond 500-600yds is not even in the running with .22LR, and CK1.0 has been emphasizing that the differences of "top tier" scopes, even if subtle, tend to show in longer ranges with difficult light/contrast.

In other words, even if you are a top shooter in rimfire PRS, and you like your "top tier" glass, is it really showing its "top tier" status at shorter ranges? That's not an insult to you, to any scope, or to rimfire shooters.
Click to expand...
This is the same takeaway I had and I think it's a reasonable position. The equipment may be the same but the use conditions are substantially different enough to result in two totally different conclusions for the same product based on the conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stemikel and Herb Stoner
#96
JaoeyP said:
I was just curious if @Chopping Broccoli did his assessment at 100, 200 yard only or if he was also basing this off of a long range assessment as well.

ETA: purely curious, not looking to discount or argue against his evaluation.
Click to expand...

I have owned the ZCO for nearly 2 years and have evaluated it to 1200 yds. I have owned the K540i for two weeks and have evaluated it to 750yds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CuddlyCat and JaoeyP
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Competition scopes under 3k
Replies
10
Views
487
On_target68
On_target68
Rodney65
Rifle Scopes What scopes have all these features?
Replies
35
Views
978
Rodney65
Rodney65
DeathBeforeDismount
SOLD BNIB KAC SR-15 Lower PN 25780
Replies
3
Views
570
clcustom1911
clcustom1911
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review
Replies
134
Views
12K
R_A_W
R_A_W
Sako man
Is the March FX 4.5-28x52 my new ZCO?
Replies
128
Views
8K
Sako man
Sako man
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts