Any new players in ultralight scope world?

[Blue72]

You gonna post your full kit list or keep talking about this DCF pillow case full of dehydrated water and unicorn jerky you have boiled it all down to? I think it's funny you're extolling the virtues of a 3moa red dot on a bolt gun. You come to the table with a consistent 1/4moa red dot and you'll be onto something. Until then, you're just bragging about hiking around in a loin cloth with a shotgun pattern sized red dot.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

why spin my wheels if you are just going to mock me. Plus it’s no secret. There are several dedicated forums to ultralight backpacking if your truly serious into embracing a better setup for the outdoors

in addition, if you knew anything about red dots, 3 MOA is smaller then most front posts of iron sights. Using a six o’clock hold you can achieve the same accuracy as good iron sights. Below is using bulk federal 223 ammo at 100 yards

 

[Formidilosus]

Off the top of my head:
Tracking - the ATACR is the only optic that I've paid more than $1,500 that wasn't 100% (but it was serviceable)
Available adjustment range
Depth of Field/parallax forgiveness
Field of View
Eyebox
Controls
Reticles (personal)
“Glass”

Thank you for the response. My only question was in the “isnt in the same planet” comment. No matter how good ZCO (or any other) is, that is such an exaggeration as to be silly.

 

[freddyG]

Off the top of my head:
Tracking - the ATACR is the only optic that I've paid more than $1,500 that wasn't 100% (but it was serviceable)
Available adjustment range
Depth of Field/parallax forgiveness
Field of View
Eyebox
Controls
Reticles (personal)
“Glass”

To be fair, the Nightforce is cheaper, came with WAY more stickers, and the box told me I'd never need a warranty.

Also, this is my opinion from optics that I’ve purchased with my own money, spent time shooting, dry firing, viewing from a tripod, etc. This isn’t an opinion from using/looking for a minute at a buddies optic, trying a student’s optic in a shooting class, looking at a store, etc.

How many rounds do you routinely put through a scope before you come to a conclusion? I ask, because there are folks on other forums that test scopes in a playground mounted on a hose hanger. They then act like they are an authority on the matter.

 

[Dobermann]

Thank you for the response. My only question was in the “isnt in the same planet” comment. No matter how good ZCO (or any other) is, that is such an exaggeration as to be silly.

That for sure ...

And the fact that the prior list didn't include the more important issues/departures such as turret spline manufacture/design, method of securing the lenses, and so on ...

But that info is out there for those who want to find it.

 

[BAKPAKR]

You gonna post your full kit list or keep talking about this DCF pillow case full of dehydrated water and unicorn jerky you have boiled it all down to?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I was able to start using a heavier scope after I got my “kit” weight down with this:

 

[freddyG]

I regularly say I’m a nobody - I’m not pretending to be a make believe expert, authority, or “reviewer”. I have a fair amount of real world experience with an okay amount of higher end optics that I buy with my own money. I’m happy to share my experience/opinion, and feel free to take it or leave it.

To your question, I’m typically shooting once a week. I shoot a bunch of paper groups and steel to at least 1,000 yards with my scopes. I don’t make up my mind for several months of shooting & dry firing an optic. That said, round count isn’t a metric to transfer between users. An optic could withstand thousands or tens of thousands of rounds through a 22 lr or 223 and fall apart with a handful of rounds through a lightweight braked 300 RUM. Simple physics.

If you really want to know the differences, what’s better, and why, you need to buy em and go use em.

Exactly what I thought. Scopes don’t fail while they are dry fired. That’s just plain ridiculous. I have bought them and used them. That’s why I asked you what you base your opinion on.
While the heavier kickers do kill more scopes, and faster, it’s very easy to puke some of the lighter scopes. IME, it takes less than 1k rounds for a swarovski, Leupold etc. to fail shooting 308 based cartridges. The Chinese scopes fail even faster. Although every manufacturer has problems(yes even NF), I have never had a Nightforce fail. That’s all I run anymore, because it’s a headache chasing your tail with scope failures.

 

[HighUintas]

As far as the lightweight Maven rs2, I firesd around 800 rounds from my Tikka '06 with fairly stiff loads last year and didn't encounter any failures.

Hopefully that trend continues!

 

[freddyG]

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone ever say that dry firing causes failure. I have seen some people talk about round count on very low recoiling setups as though it means something, haha.

If you’re happy with your NFs, don’t go buy a ZCO

Why mention dry firing then? My last Swaro went tits up with under 600 rounds of bolt rifle chambered in 223. Of course safe queen scopes don’t fail. They also don’t fail because someone is looking through them. That’s why I asked you how much you shoot. Scopes fail from actual use.

 

[freddyG]

Seems like we’re having two different conversations here man.

Like I said, I’m out shooting with my optics every week. I shoot lots of paper within 500 yards, and steel at distance. I dry fire during the week when I’m not actually live firing. I static mount to check tracking. And I’ll tripod mount to view optical qualities - although I don’t dork out as much as some.

Never did I say dry firing was to check for failure. I dry fire to get more time in with my rifle and optic. That’s not a new concept or something I made up.

Contrary to what some say in this forum, there’s more than one or two optics that track and hold zero. Once that’s taken care of, other things matter to those of us regularly using our gear. FoV, DoF, eyebox (for example) matter if you ever get off your belly or away from a bench. And yeah, glass matters too if you’re the type that doesn’t just shoot in blue bird sunny conditions. I’ve shot in conditions where one optic could clearly resolve a target and another I was making an educated guess. My ZCO and Tangent handle mirage substantially better than other optics I’ve used. If you don’t shoot in mirage, that won’t matter.

Like I said, if you want true experience, go buy the equipment and actually use it.

That’s the thing, I have used many scopes, some to the point of failure. You are just ducking and dodging my questions. I’ll ask again, what are the round counts that you have put through these scopes? A couple boxes of shells doesn’t really tell you much. I have logs of all the rounds I have put through guns/scopes, and can tell you that I have not had a light scope last past 1k rounds. Most fail much sooner.
Your posts are opposite of my experience, so that’s why I chimed in.

 

[freddyG]

My number one criteria is a scope that works, and is dependable. I shoot a lot, and something that fails is unacceptable. What good is a forgiving eye box, if the scope can’t track, or has wonky POI?
Falling for marketing BS isn’t my thing. ZCO stands for zero compromise, but isn’t being heavy, a compromise?

I’m not comparing round count with anybody. I asked a simple question that you are avoiding, I can only assume why. How did your ATACR fail? What model? What robust lightweight scopes do you recommend? Will they last when you actually use them?

 

[Dobermann]

Pretty funny commentary be somebody that hasn’t owned an ATACR or ZCO, LOL. But you go ahead and regurgitate what you’ve read on the internet’s. I’ll stick with real world experience.

The build design elements I referenced about the ZCO (hardened steel splines, longer 'teeth' which engage the spline and are positioned opposite each other to prevent torsion on the turret, and ZCO's method of securing the lenses) are things that I see as positives for the ZCO build quality.

I was simply meaning that most of the things you listed were features, user preferences, and so on. Not saying they don't matter at all - I like all the same things about the ZCO. It's more that much of the discussion on this thread is about reliability - and there seems to be a lot in favor of ZCO in terms of reliability, so that's where the interesting conversation lies for me.

This isn't regurgitating what I'd read on the internet, but came from listening to in-depth interviews with both Jeff and Nick, and making my own assessment, based on a basic understanding of construction.

Yes, I've owned Nightforce, I hope to own ZCO in the future. Looking forward to seeing how ZCO stand up over time; given Jeff and Nick's background, I expect that they'll do well.

 

[freddyG]

I have no need to validate anything. Money is no issue here. I own what I want. I was just stating my observations. Unlike you, I use my stuff. Put it through the ringer.

Round count matters, because parking a scope in a safe doesn’t accomplish anything. It definitely doesn’t tell you if they work or not. If you really think that you can tell how well a scope works by looking through it/dry firing it, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.
27 oz is far from lightweight. That’s a pig. You do realize that there are multiple robust scopes under 19oz. don’t you? I don’t think you know as much as you think you do.

I have used just about every scope out there, and own/owned quite a few also. Some I didn’t care for, so I never bought into the hype/bought them. ZCO is one. The turrets are a dealbreaker for me.

 

[freddyG]

Off the top of my head:
Tracking - the ATACR is the only optic that I've paid more than $1,500 that wasn't 100% (but it was serviceable)

If something isn't 100%, that implies a problem. Maybe I’m crazy.
The topic IS lightweight scopes, so how am I trying to deflect?

 

[madcalfe]

I have no need to validate anything. Money is no issue here. I own what I want. I was just stating my observations. Unlike you, I use my stuff. Put it through the ringer.

Round count matters, because parking a scope in a safe doesn’t accomplish anything. It definitely doesn’t tell you if they work or not. If you really think that you can tell how well a scope works by looking through it/dry firing it, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.
27 oz is far from lightweight. That’s a pig. You do realize that there are multiple robust scopes under 19oz. don’t you? I don’t think you know as much as you think you do.

I have used just about every scope out there, and own/owned quite a few also. Some I didn’t care for, so I never bought into the hype/bought them. ZCO is one. The turrets are a dealbreaker for me.

Scope Tracking Test Results 2020

Follow Sniper's Hide and pick up the latest information on all things precision rifle related. Sniper's Hide Training is for the serious tactical marksman.

www.snipershide.com

 

[freddyG]

Let me guess: you like super snipers, tikkas, and you think the left sides of optics are very fragile when you drop them 3-ft onto concrete multiple times, throw, and drag them during your “T&E” evolution



if you are really out shooting and have half a clue, tracking within about 2% is serviceable. It’s lame to buy a +/-$2k optic in 2021 and have it not be 100%, but it’s still useable.

Every post of mine you quoted was specific to ZCO & ATACR. Just out of curiosity, is you NF an ATACR?

Swfa’s track like a bloodhound, but the glass is like looking through a coke bottle. Something designed in the 80’s isn’t going to rival today’s scopes. The price reflects that. Tikkas are plastic junk. Never owned one.

I have about a dozen NF scopes. Beasts, an ATACR, but mostly f1 nxs’s. That is my favorite scope. Mil-spec nxs’s are the toughest scope you will find. As close to zero failure rate scope as you can get.

Now that we got that out of the way, I totally understand why putting rounds through scopes doesn’t matter in your eyes. Why would it when you can just hop on over to Franks site, and become an expert in 20 minutes.

Tell me something, the ZCO doesn’t track 100% either, according to their test.
That’s a big deal for NF but not ZCO?

What does Frank think about lightweight scopes? LMFAO

 

[freddyG]

Some error is fine. You adjust your dope. Like I said, if it wasn’t for Frank, you wouldn’t know which end of the scope to look through.

 

[Bubblehide]

God, you two sound like an old couple that has been married about 50 years to long,

 

[freddyG]

So wait, you thought anything other than 100% is an implied problem (really you just incorrectly inferred), even though I explicitly stated it was serviceable. Now you think some error is fine? Which one is it?

Are you just gonna keep dodging and ducking all my other questions? Let’s hear about your round count metric and how you correlate to other rifles, loads, scopes, etc? Failure rates? Toughness? How about what experience of yours that is exact opposite of my comments regarding ATACRs and ZCO?

Please quote where I said any of that. Your comprehension needs work. You are the one that said your atacr wasn’t 100%. When I pointed out that ZCO also has error(according to Frank), and asked how that was acceptable to you for your ZCO but not your ATACR, you ran.

I never stated I correlate anything. When a scope fails to hold POI, I’m not impressed. It doesn’t matter whether it’s on a BB gun or a ultra mag. I don’t have time for scope failures anymore. Not when there are scopes available that are dependable.

It was you that stated “ZCO is light years ahead of NF” How so? Just because you read it on SH?
This thread is about lightweight scopes. Does ZCO or TT make any? You are the one that brought those up. FYI, Nightforce makes scopes that are under 19 oz, and are reliable. That might not be lightweight to some, but it’s not anywhere near heavy.

 

[madcalfe]

The night force nxs they tested over tracked by 2% all the ATACR were under 2% I mean I’m running a kahles they have horrible tracking scores

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Holy $hit people are stupid sensitive about their optics
I will say though Mr Freddyg has a point about rounds fired and scope failures.

I've shot with quite a few guys that were in love with a given scope until it straight up failed on them.
Most were vx line Leopolds and vortex but I've heard first hand about a few NXS horror stories.
Granted one of them spent a few years on a 338 lapua improved but it was a failure to hold zero.

Bottom line is that all scopes can fail, and heavy use will up the chances of it happening.
Cheap ultralight hunting scopes are an absolute crap shoot though