Rifle Scopes ZCO 2-16
- Thread starter BurtGummer
- Start date
@Glassaholic: What reticle/s do you like?For a competition reticle the MPCT3 is decent, for a crossover reticle it makes me vomit
(PS - I hate the H2CMR as well). But I'm very particular about reticles and I don't expect everyone to think like me. As my old pops used to tell me, "you're entitled to your own wrong opinion"
Apologies if I've missed this in other posts of yours; still making my way through the historical content here ...
Favorites:
TT Gen3 XR
March FML TR1
Minox MR4
NF Mil-XT
Vortex EBR-7c
looking at the above you start to catch a theme - Christmas tree “dots”. I do not like busy trees or thick horizontal tree lines. Keep in mind I said “I do not like” which doesn’t mean I won’t use, I have used plenty of thick reticles effectively.
Reticle is very much personal preference and just because I prefer vanilla doesn’t mean that chocolate can’t be someone else’s favorite.
The PMII version of the 3-12x54 is listed on the S&B website as weighing 922grams (32.5 ounces).
The Hunting version is listed as 674 ounces (23.8 ounces).
Both are available with P4FL reticle.
Given that they should more or less identical other than turrets, it is interesting that there is that much of a weight difference.
ILya
I noticed that discrepancy as well, I doubt the PM II turrets weigh more than a half pound so what else is going on?
Just curious, for scopes in the alpha class which this thread is pretty much addressing, which ones do you not feel are reliable?
I think the poster was intending to say reliability is job #1
if one is claiming to be alpha class glass designer
not impling that ZCO can't build a reliable scope
I have a PM2 3-12x50 without illumination and parallax adjust and it weighs just a hair over 25oz. Same scope with both options is listed at 29.21oz
Correct on both counts.
And we do have examples of some reliability issues from other 'alpha' manufacturers ... I'm not going to go there in this post; was just making the point earlier that while we keep using the phrase 'alpha glass', the main priority needs to be on reliability (tracking, RTZ, no zero shift, and so on).
Fair enough, every scope manufacturer has failures, even TT, ZCO, Schmidt and the like (and dare I say even Nightforce). Making a statement in a ZCO thread for reliability for a manufacturer that puts an emphasis on reliability (not saying others don’t) just struck me as odd. I would expect any scope from ZCO and for that matter any alpha scope from any manufacturer to be reliable, if they are not word will quickly spread throughout the community. I can think of only one mfr that fits this (unreliable by word of mouth) who has scopes priced in the alpha class.
Hi Bill,
Gotcha.
My comment wasn't directed at ZCO, but at Squibbler's guiding question for their list: "So what's # one priority here?" ... reliability (demonstrated through extensive testing, not small usage of samples of one) wasn't on there, and that's common in discussions about scopes.
It seems that, as users, we get caught up in 'features' (which are often personal preference, anyway) and even aesthetics, rather than what should be the fundamentals ... many posts about rifle scopes talk about them more as if they are performing a spotting scope function, rather than an aiming device function.
So, my post was really for all of us as consumers and users: it's great to have wishlists, but we need to hold onto what should be baseline ... and that some of our wishes (ultra shorts, high zoom ratios, low weight, and so on) often lead to design and build compromises that then affect reliability.
Gotcha.
My comment wasn't directed at ZCO, but at Squibbler's guiding question for their list: "So what's # one priority here?" ... reliability (demonstrated through extensive testing, not small usage of samples of one) wasn't on there, and that's common in discussions about scopes.
It seems that, as users, we get caught up in 'features' (which are often personal preference, anyway) and even aesthetics, rather than what should be the fundamentals ... many posts about rifle scopes talk about them more as if they are performing a spotting scope function, rather than an aiming device function.
So, my post was really for all of us as consumers and users: it's great to have wishlists, but we need to hold onto what should be baseline ... and that some of our wishes (ultra shorts, high zoom ratios, low weight, and so on) often lead to design and build compromises that then affect reliability.
I have not. But am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, there have been reticles I have not liked on paper that I ended up liking in actual use but you’re the first whose mentioned it fades away. I’m in the middle of a move and a couple other priorities so will have to wait. My next location is about an hour from Altus which will be my new long range home, hopefully there’re some guys with ZCO’s down that way.
Altus will be an hour north of me
General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube. Edited to add: length not longer than 13 inches.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?) Developing a new optic doesn't happen in 6 months for us, lots of much more detailed analysis of everything to do as well as cost of development to budget for.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
Developing a new optic doesn't happen in 6 months for us, lots of much more detailed analysis of everything to do as well as cost of development to budget for. Last edited:
@gebhardt02 Looks like you've got the ingredients for a winner!
General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
In the meantime get that msr2 reticle in the 4-20 line
General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
We will take all of them
Personally I don’t think the 30mm tube is such a big deal. Run 34mm tubes on my hunting rigs and they mount nice and low just fine. Or in this case a 36mm, just to keep things consistent.
Yeah seems like they really aren’t into it @Dthomas3523
Put me in line for the first 2We will take all of them
General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube. Edited to add: length not longer than 13 inches.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
Also consider a FFP reticle that is visible at 2x for us clip-on guys. While it won't be useful for holdovers, it will provide a better point of reference for point blank range type shooting, inside of 200 yards or so. Making the outside cross hairs thicker makes it easier find the super thin center part of the reticle that is more useful at the top end of the magnification range. ..if that makes sense.
This can be negated by having a very clearly defined aiming point that's brightly illuminated, much like how the S&B LLR-Mil reticle works - like a red dot at 3x.
2-20 would be a dream come true, but I'd be equally as happy with a 3-18, 2.5-15, etc [or heck, even a 3-15] assuming you aren't compromising eyebox/eye relief/FOV etc. I don't have unrealistic expectations so far as mag range. I value the quality and end usability that ZC has become known for but I just want it in a lightweight package...General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
Any object between 42mm-50mm seems to fit the bill. Large enough to bring in some light when you need it but small enough to save weight and allow for low mounting. Perfect size for a crossover hunting/tactical optic.
Locking elevation and capped windage. Yep.
I'm not as picky on the turret's adjustable range so long as I can zero it and dial for 10mils of elevation if I need it.
Zero stop would be nice if you could fit it.
Low profile turrets. Please.
I value the experience from looking through glass itself as much as the light weight. So good glass is a must.
Generous eyebox. Yes.
Mil tree reticle would be great. Not tremor kind of crowded, but maybe something like your MPCT3 or Razors XLR-2 MRAD. Usable in FFP.
I don't much care what the size of the tube would have to be. Just keep it a standard size and lighter weight.
If you can come pretty close to the above criteria, I'll take two right off the bat.
I'd prepay!
What kind of time frame we talking? ~2 years out? I was going to buy a T96, but I might hold off now......
Please tell us when you decide to start development, then I will start saving up for 2 of them!General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube. Edited to add: length not longer than 13 inches.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube. Edited to add: length not longer than 13 inches.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
- 25oz (or lighter) would be outstanding, but I'd also be pretty happy with 27 or 28oz range
- I think a 3-18 or 3.5-21 would be more than satisfactory. I would also be very happy with a 4-20 if that's what makes something like this actually made. For me, maintaining the larger FoV that ZCO already has is more important than the actual magnification on the low end.
- For a hunting/cross-over scope, I also want a large eyebox and very forgiving parallax.
- Locking or non-locking elevation. Locking windage preferred, but capped okay.
- 10 mil/rev turrets. I don't "need" two full revs for a hunting/cross-over optic but would definitely take it.
- Yes to superior optics
- The MPCT1/2 is very useable from 4 to 20 currently. But yes, if you're going to a +/- 2 - 20 optic (or similar larger erector), then please give reticles more thought and don't just throw the current selections in there.
- Main tube: not a big deal to me. Go with a 32mm if that's what makes all this work out.
- I'm not running a clip-on so short length means about nothing to me. I'd almost prefer 13.5" - 14" length to better accommodate mounting on a long action without an adjustable cheek piece
I just want to take a moment to say THANK YOU to all of the members that have commented in this thread and have supported ZCO over the last few years. Your opinion is being heard it is not falling on deaf ears.
Although it takes time to develop a best in class optic, good things come to those that wait. Your help contributing to this new design will ultimately help ensure a superior product.
Thank you again from the entire ZCO staff world wide
Although it takes time to develop a best in class optic, good things come to those that wait. Your help contributing to this new design will ultimately help ensure a superior product.
Thank you again from the entire ZCO staff world wide
Last edited:
In theory, for clip-ons, they mostly demagnify at 3x, but what we find is that we're almost always seeing the entire FOV at 2.7x or so. So 2.5x would be okay in my book as well, but 2x would cover it indubitably.
For clarity, I think everyone in here is actually more concerned with FOV than magnification at the low end. If it’s easier to do a similar FOV with a less insane zoom ratio, that’s a-ok in my book.General design criteria I'm seeing...... weight is the biggest concern, preferred no heavier than 25 ounces, but the lighter the better. Magnification range low end of 2X and high end of 20X maximum. The low end seems more important than more magnification? Objective diameter doesn't seem super important to you guys but not larger than 50mm so the scope can be mounted lower and for weight reduction. Locking elevation and capped windage, 10 Mil turrets with two revs. and low profile. Superior optics as usual, wide eyebox, no edge distortion. Reticle design will be important for crossover hunting/tactical purposes. Center illumination only seems preferred and needs to be bright, and visible on lowest mag setting. Two reticles, one a tree style design with dots and the other a straight crosshair. Probably a 30mm tube. Edited to add: length not longer than 13 inches.
Did I miss anything?
Don't get too excited just yet gentlemen (gentlepersons?)
I’m really looking forward to this scope in a couple years
If your business types need some incentive, look at the response on Vortex’s new 4.5-22.
Put me in line for one....will ditch my SB 5-20US for this thing in a heart beat.
Thank you for being open minded to what the shooter is asking for.I own 2 of the ZC 4x20 scopes and I am very happy with them you took your time and did it right with the 4x20 and i would love to see another scope of the same quality as the 4x20.
And this is how you sell scopes. Best in class.
I would say for this application the answer is yes, this would be an MPVO design and not a "long range" design per se so having better performance at the lower end would hold more weight than say the 4-20 as an example. Not that we don't want or couldn't use higher magnification at the top, but if a 2-16 means a sacrifice in performance, then maybe a 2.5-15x42 that is superb throughout the magnification range is preferred. I know others have mentioned 3-18, but to be honest I feel this is so close to the 4-20 it almost becomes "what's the point?", but a 2.5-15 opens the doors to other crossover uses like Skyscrapin mentions, for use with clipons and the like.
50mm is definitely going to appeal to the crossover crowd that wants best in class low light performance; however, if the weight can be kept at bay by making a 42/44mm objective then, again for this particular design and target audience, I'd say the preference would be toward the smaller objective. This should also make it more forgiving in a short body design with DOF and eyebox.
This type of scope really is what I'm after for a handful of rifles. All hunting guns. I've spent a ton of time behind almost every 3-15, 4-16, 3-20, 4-20, 5-20 scope in the alpha class. I've owned 4 zcos, Many tangents: Both M and P models. Too many Schmidt to count.. You name it, I've bought it. Multiple times. Ask @CSTactical lol. Some of that is from not being able to afford 10 scopes in front of me at the same time to do direct comparison.
The ZCO 4-20 is a fantastic scope. It really is. Few things aren't my favorite but hey, personal opinions. Weight is one. I would prefer a sub 28oz scope. I would prefer a thicker reticle for when it's on 4x. Just a gen2Mildot would work well. Or the P4F (the thickness of the one from the 5-20us at .07. Not the one from others with the .04 center) It makes a difference from what I can see. The minox Zp5 3-15 with MR2 comes to mind for a good reticle too. MR5 is also useful. If the reticle is not big enough to be useful on 2,3,4x then like others said, it better be bright. Otherwise what's the point of even having it on 3-4x. Especially for me if hunting in timber.
I second the guys saying no need for more then two rev turret on a hunting gun. At 10 mil / rev, who is actually dialing 20 mils regularly while hunting. I would never get out of the first rev. Capped wind is fine. One thing I've noticed is on hunting guns pending where the windage turret is located on the ejection port I will get brass to hammer the turret and go right back into the action. My Lone peaks did this even with 1.1 rings. My Defiance actions eject right at 3 o clock so they still clear the biggest of turrets (TT professional) and not an issue. Just things that I have to make sure are right when I'm counting on it in the woods. Yea, you can mount the scope higher, then you need adjustable comb or a bag rider adding even more weight. But I'm no way putting 1.5 rings on a hunting gun.
I dont use a clip-on yet but @SkyScrapin brings up points that may be useful on the lower end. However, if the FOV is wider at your 3/4x then say another optic at 2/3x, then what do you really gain by possibility compromising other items going to that 8x or 10x ratio? I'm no expert here. Without looking at numbers for FOV, if the NF at 2x is the same as say the Schmidt at 3x... how does this relate to FOV through a clipon..?
@Glassaholic and I spend a lot of time looking through these scopes and personally this discussion pushes the buttons for me on my most needed scope. We both have needs for higher end mil/mil scopes with 3-20 ish mag ranges but usually the kicker is reticles and weight. Right now the TT315M with mildot reticle checks the most boxes. Followed by the 3-20US with the new dt2+ turrets.
I would be all over a lighter weight 3/4-18/20 ZCO with a more simple thicker hunting reticle. Make the tube 30-34 if it's needed, and something in the 6-10 mil per rev turrets. Cap the wind if you have to. Well I'm in. I'll take two.
Excuse the typos, I'm on the road.
The ZCO 4-20 is a fantastic scope. It really is. Few things aren't my favorite but hey, personal opinions. Weight is one. I would prefer a sub 28oz scope. I would prefer a thicker reticle for when it's on 4x. Just a gen2Mildot would work well. Or the P4F (the thickness of the one from the 5-20us at .07. Not the one from others with the .04 center) It makes a difference from what I can see. The minox Zp5 3-15 with MR2 comes to mind for a good reticle too. MR5 is also useful. If the reticle is not big enough to be useful on 2,3,4x then like others said, it better be bright. Otherwise what's the point of even having it on 3-4x. Especially for me if hunting in timber.
I second the guys saying no need for more then two rev turret on a hunting gun. At 10 mil / rev, who is actually dialing 20 mils regularly while hunting. I would never get out of the first rev. Capped wind is fine. One thing I've noticed is on hunting guns pending where the windage turret is located on the ejection port I will get brass to hammer the turret and go right back into the action. My Lone peaks did this even with 1.1 rings. My Defiance actions eject right at 3 o clock so they still clear the biggest of turrets (TT professional) and not an issue. Just things that I have to make sure are right when I'm counting on it in the woods. Yea, you can mount the scope higher, then you need adjustable comb or a bag rider adding even more weight. But I'm no way putting 1.5 rings on a hunting gun.
I dont use a clip-on yet but @SkyScrapin brings up points that may be useful on the lower end. However, if the FOV is wider at your 3/4x then say another optic at 2/3x, then what do you really gain by possibility compromising other items going to that 8x or 10x ratio? I'm no expert here. Without looking at numbers for FOV, if the NF at 2x is the same as say the Schmidt at 3x... how does this relate to FOV through a clipon..?
@Glassaholic and I spend a lot of time looking through these scopes and personally this discussion pushes the buttons for me on my most needed scope. We both have needs for higher end mil/mil scopes with 3-20 ish mag ranges but usually the kicker is reticles and weight. Right now the TT315M with mildot reticle checks the most boxes. Followed by the 3-20US with the new dt2+ turrets.
I would be all over a lighter weight 3/4-18/20 ZCO with a more simple thicker hunting reticle. Make the tube 30-34 if it's needed, and something in the 6-10 mil per rev turrets. Cap the wind if you have to. Well I'm in. I'll take two.
Excuse the typos, I'm on the road.
If ya ain't running a clip on yer wrong just a psa
To me, 40mm or 42mm makes a lot of sense because alpha glass in a 40mm will be way better than 50mm with inferior glass. Especially at 2.5x or 3x
I keep buying scopes and can't afford a quality thermal yet.If ya ain't running a clip on yer wrong just a psa
. I hear it all the time from @SkyScrapin who will be the one I would buying it from. My will power is strong. So far... I keep buying scopes and can't afford a quality thermal yet.
I live in California, so no thermal anythingI keep buying scopes and can't afford a quality thermal yet.
If I recall correctly,
PMII is 34mm
Klassik is 30mm
And I had the same scope as @Wyfox without parallax and illumination and the P3 reticle and mine weighed same as his.
Have you gotten behind the TT315LRH yet? That reticle fits my needs for a hunting scope the best. Followed by the P3 reticle.
I agree with you here on both. I believe the LRH Mrad reticle is .075 if I'm not mistaken. I'll take that. I just prefer the M turrets so ultimately why I have a few of those over the H. I was going to have Jerry at Schmidt put a P3 in a ultra short for me but was costly and didn't do it. I currently just moved over a 5-20us with the p4f from a gas gun to a hunting gun to fill a void currently and that reticle works well in that specific scope.
I know some of the new offerings I've been lucky enough to have time with from Vortex and others will fill a lot of the void the market is looking for. But it's hard to slap something on your new custom rig and expect it to be just as good, when I'm spoiled with optics like Zco, TT, Schmidt, etc. The new March almost made it to a rifle but the spacing from the LA Defiance Anti-X made it not mountable for me. So those things come into consideration too with short optics on LA rifles. Same issue I had with a zco and my LA Lone Peak fusion TI.
10-4.
I have a Premier LT 315 Hunter with the mildot that works well for hunting also.
Just tell them it’s underwearI live in California, so no thermal anything
Don’t Let the Commies in Sac let you think you cannot own thermal equipment…. You can own and use anything NV/Thermal there you just cannot hunt/take game in CA unless that specific game is listed/highlighted on a Depredation permit….I live in California, so no thermal anything
I'd make sure to intercept that prototype package coming from Idaho to Texas. Package mysteriously lost in the mail.
