Q&A for Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm THLR scope

[Dobermann]

For me, yes. That’s what I did this year. And will will next year as well. If weight truly matters or where the range is mostly 600 and in, the SWFA’s are the option. However, for shooting past 600 regularly, this thing offers capability that makes it worth it.
The SWFA 6x and 3-9x MQ’s are small’ish and light’ish, reliable and durable, hold zero, and have a reticle that is usable in pretty much all lighting conditions. I can’t say that putting a $3k plus scope on a hunting rifle will get most a measurable advantage in shooting animals, and for the normal hunting rifles I would stick with normal scopes. BUT, for use where I will shoot past normal ranges, I do like a bit of weight and find 8.5-10’ish pounds to be about right.

The real thing with this is the total package, the Master Sporter stock, 20” light barrel, suppressed, and the scope/reticle make this the easiest to hit with in the field rifle from 0-1,200m I have used. It’s 11.5lbs as it sits, and I will be carrying it for sheep this fall…

Hi Form, just trying to understand this in relation to your comment in the 'Reticle for Hunting' thread: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/reticle-for-hunting.248969/page-2#post-2436515:

Hi Form, I know you've said in the past that a 4-16x42 (to 45) would work for most of your applications ... why not this [THLR reticle] in the current ATACR for you? Just weight? Or anything else?

Weight and cost. It’ll basically be a $3,000 30oz scope with the reticle. It would be good for a lot of use, but wouldn’t replace the 3-9x SWFA’s because of the weight.

Has something shifted in your thinking about this in the last few weeks, or is it more that the Minox ZP5 THLR works for you for long shots - and is the only platform that reticle comes in?

 

[MidGAHunter]

I highly doubt there is anyone out there who’s had two NF scopes back to back have debris or oil on the lens inside the optic straight from the factory. I’m sure there’s plenty 1/100 guys out there who were just unlucky with one scope.

I own 5 Nightforce scopes. Two of them arrived to me (brand new) with debris visible. One of the two had to be sent back to have the issue resolved (scope back in hand in less than 2 weeks). Different model scopes as well. My trust in those scopes hasn't wavered as mechanically they are sound. Debris happens...annoying as hell but happens.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hi Form, just trying to understand this in relation to your comment in the 'Reticle for Hunting' thread: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/reticle-for-hunting.248969/page-2#post-2436515:


Has something shifted in your thinking about this in the last few weeks, or is it more that the Minox ZP5 THLR works for you for long shots - and is the only platform that reticle comes in?

Well my comment in that thread was really for most people a 30oz, $3,000 scope isn’t going to be very appealing no matter the reticle. And still, the ZP5 doesn’t replace what smaller scopes are. I wouldn’t put a ZP5 on every rifle because 19oz scopes cover their ranges just fine. For me, for a rifle that I would normally use a NX8, ATACR, PMII, etc. the Minox THLR does what those do, but better from a user standpoint. The long term reliability is yet to be seen though.

 

[BjornF16]

It would be awesome in a 3-15x scope. Or a 3-9x one, or fixed 6x.

Well…any idea if any other scope manufacturer is looking at @THLR reticle?

NF doesn’t seem interested in using “competitors’” reticle…SWFA hasn’t really brought anything new to market in awhile…

Since Minox came out with the 5-25, are they looking at 3-15 or 4-20 in a slightly smaller form factor?

 

[Formidilosus]

Since Minox came out with the 5-25, are they looking at 3-15 or 4-20 in a slightly smaller form factor?

Can’t say on other scopes. However, I kind of doubt Minox will add the reticle to another scope.

 

[Dobermann]

Well my comment in that thread was really for most people a 30oz, $3,000 scope isn’t going to be very appealing no matter the reticle. And still, the ZP5 doesn’t replace what smaller scopes are. I wouldn’t put a ZP5 on every rifle because 19oz scopes cover their ranges just fine. For me, for a rifle that I would normally use a NX8, ATACR, PMII, etc. the Minox THLR does what those do, but better from a user standpoint. The long term reliability is yet to be seen though.

Thanks Form, that all makes sense, and squares with what I was guessing ... however, wondering if you'd be happy to expand on "the Minox THLR does what those do, but better from a user standpoint" - are you meaning just because of the reticle, or other factors such as 'eyebox', FOV, and so on?

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks Form, that all makes sense, and squares with what I was guessing ... however, wondering if you'd be happy to expand on "the Minox THLR does what those do, but better from a user standpoint" - are you meaning just because of the reticle, or other factors such as 'eyebox', FOV, and so on?

The whole thing- eyebox, FOV, DOF, IQ, and especially the reticle.

IF they were NF reliable, they’d be the only LR scope I would use for hunting.

 

[Helislacker]

The whole thing- eyebox, FOV, DOF, IQ, and especially the reticle.

IF they were NF reliable, they’d be the only LR scope I would use for hunting.

So if you had to choose between two, would you go for the ATACR 4-20 MIL-C or ZP5 THLR? This is for a general purpose field/hunting rifle. I choose the ATACR 4-20 because it’s the most alpha optic in the NF line that is still relatively compact.

 

[Formidilosus]

So if you had to choose between two, would you go for the ATACR 4-20 MIL-C or ZP5 THLR? This is for a general purpose field/hunting rifle. I choose the ATACR 4-20 because it’s the most alpha optic in the NF line that is still relatively compact.

Depends on the risk one was willing to take on reliability. The ATACR is known, I haven’t talked to anyone that has actually used the ZP5 hard. Thomas at THLR uses his, but I don’t know his results. If reliability and durability were equal, Minox with THLR reticle. If someone were willing to get a ZP5 and test it before use, probably would go that way too. However if reliability and durability matter more, or someone just wants no fuss- NF has that.

 

[Helislacker]

Depends on the risk one was willing to take on reliability. The ATACR is known, I haven’t talked to anyone that has actually used the ZP5 hard. Thomas at THLR uses his, but I don’t know his results. If reliability and durability were equal, Minox with THLR reticle. If someone were willing to get a ZP5 and test it before use, probably would go that way too. However if reliability and durability matter more, or someone just wants no fuss- NF has that.

Appreciate the quick reply. Obviously, given my previous experience with Minox and the lack of SWFA availability up here, NF is my best option. Given the NF line up. Is the ATACR 4-20 Mil C the one you’d choose given the other options? Or would you choose something else from NF?

 

[Formidilosus]

Appreciate the quick reply. Obviously, given my previous experience with Minox and the lack of SWFA availability up here, NF is my best option. Given the NF line up. Is the ATACR 4-20 Mil C the one you’d choose given the other options? Or would you choose something else from NF?

4-16x42mm F1 ATACR. Mil-C or Mil-R. Smaller, and best turret design on the market.

 

[Helislacker]

4-16x42mm F1 ATACR. Mil-C or Mil-R. Smaller, and best turret design on the market.

Makes sense. For matches I prefer the extra 4x but I had a hell of a time deciding between the two. Curious to see how your long term results with the ZP5 play out, and if you can get a couple more to test. If there’s no issue maybe I’ll overlook the QC issues I’ve experienced and give them another shot.

 

[Dobermann]

Changing track slightly ... does anyone know whether/how these are still available? Seems like most of the usual suspects do not have them in stock ... are they still in production / would Minox have sizeable stock available?

 

[Formidilosus]

Changing track slightly ... does anyone know whether/how these are still available? Seems like most of the usual suspects do not have them in stock ... are they still in production / would Minox have sizeable stock available?

Order through Eurooptic.

 

[Dobermann]

I picked one out that looked like it might stop and as soon as it paused I held with the “Aim Long” and dropped it. The range was 557 yards. Yes I really just held a mil high on the second shot and with a normal mil reticle I could have done the same. However, there is just something intuitive about “AIM LONG” staring you in the face.
Like the “wind brackets” in the reticle, there is nothing here that you can’t do with a normal mil reticle. But, like the wind holds, the Aim Short and Aim Long are just intuitive and easy under stress.


Both the “wind brackets” and the “Aim Short and Long” are silly easy to teach others and have them be able to immediately apply it.

I'm tempted to be cheeky and ask if you've finally found a BDC reticle you like ... but am aware that might be misconstrued by some!

The serious question is more along the lines of - given this is a mil-based reticle, but I'm pretty sure @THLR described it (on a Gunwerks podcast, IIRC) as a BDC reticle optimised for ~500 metre shooting, does the reticle seem to be the best of both worlds?

Or is a 'BDC reticle' almost an insult to the intelligence that went into it - does calling it a BDC reticle under-acknowledge what the reticle can do, as well as misunderstand the decision-making that happens during shooting when using this reticle?

As I think Thomas has tried to describe, it's not so much a reticle designed to just be 'a reticle', but more of a mapping, in reticle form, of a particular approach to a thinking about shooting - to almost, in a way, reduce thinking by cutting out whole steps, not only of both maths (in standard mil-based reticle use) but also the 'pre-set maths', if you will, of traditional BDC reticles ...

Is it almost as if the reticle matches how we might want to think - or not think - while shooting, rather than having to consciously think in relation to the reticle, and then apply it back to our shooting?

 

[Dobermann]

For more info on the above, here's @THLR's Gunwerks podcast: https://www.gunwerks.com/blog/lrp-p...nd-long-range-hunting-with-thomas-haugland-58

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm tempted to be cheeky and ask if you've finally found a BDC reticle you like ... but am aware that might be misconstrued by some!

Haha.

The serious question is more along the lines of - given this is a mil-based reticle, but I'm pretty sure @THLR described it (on a Gunwerks podcast, IIRC) as a BDC reticle optimised for ~500 metre shooting, does the reticle seem to be the best of both worlds?

Because mils are based in tens, and Jesus loves tens, mils becomes a BDC type thing anyways. The THLR just makes it a bit more obvious. How many people “hate” mils, yet love or use the Swarovski BRH/BRX reticles?

Or is a 'BDC reticle' almost an insult to the intelligence that went into it - does calling it a BDC reticle under-acknowledge what the reticle can do, as well as misunderstand the decision-making that happens during shooting when using this reticle?

I think the second point is closer to it. At a base level it’s a very easy to use, simple mil based reticle OR simple drop compensating reticle, with excellent low, medium, and high power usability. However, for those that learn a bit more, it is much more.

As I think Thomas has tried to describe, it's not so much a reticle designed to just be 'a reticle', but more of a mapping, in reticle form, of a particular approach to a thinking about shooting - to almost, in a way, reduce thinking by cutting out whole steps, not only of both maths (in standard mil-based reticle use) but also the 'pre-set maths', if you will, of traditional BDC reticles ...

Is it almost as if the reticle matches how we might want to think - or not think - while shooting, rather than having to consciously think in relation to the reticle, and then apply it back to our shooting?

Correct. Or at least how Thomas’s experiences lead him to how we think- which is rooted in solid understanding of conscience and unconscious thinking, eye tracking, and stress at a minimum. I use a shooting system that has been developed specifically through large data sets of differing shooters performing under stress at a high level, how the brain works, and hit rates in the field under varied conditions- all of that match what the THLR reticle offers almost across the board.

 

[Dobermann]

Thanks Form, that's really helpful.

Related to this, then, where do you stand on the idea of customised turrets / 'BDC'/distance turrets for use on this scope?

I know Thomas uses them, and I can see how they're another part of not having to think while shooting. Part of me, though, is ... disquietened? ... by the idea of moving away from mils on a turret - the distance to target is the distance to target, while mils on a turret seems to function (in my head, at least) as both a translation to distance (for a particular cartridge), but also be its own useful measurement in itself ... it's almost as if I have a low-level fear that if I stopped thinking in mils, then I'd lose that ability ... or something.

Not sure if that makes sense ... perhaps another question would be - if you knew that you were only going to ever use this scope for one cartridge on one rifle, would you shift to a BDC turret? Why / why not?

 

[Dobermann]

Mine were the 5-25 LR.


Mine were the 5-25 LR’s which are nearly identical and made in the same factory in Germany. Why would the reticle have anything to do with this?

I know that we covered that the LR is different from the ZP5 earlier ...

For reference, here's a comparison of the dimensions and styling posted by BigJimFish at SnipersHide:

 

[Formidilosus]

if you knew that you were only going to ever use this scope for one cartridge on one rifle, would you shift to a BDC turret? Why / why not?

No. While the range/BDC thing can work, and especially out to 500-600 yards, and in environments that are relatively stable; it’s introducing a two part system. For some things it’s a range based system- range is 450 yards, dial to 450 yards on turret; for others, whether due to widely differing environmentals or exceeding the useful ranges, etc. And when you miss, you’re reading the reticle in mils to adjust- so you have to go from range based, to mil based, and back to range based.
This works much better for most if they stick with one or the other. However for most a strict mil system and thinking in mils is the cleanest way to work the whole problem.


While those parts are interesting, especially the wind parts, I wouldn’t start someone there unless that is the only system they will use, AND they are always spotting there own shots. And I wouldn’t recommend that.