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

[Dioni A]

That’s pretty close to what @Ryan Avery and I were discussing a couple days ago. However, might I suggest an 18”/36” ranging scale like your silhouette scale on the bottom right. Marked 18” on left, 36” on right for back to brisket measurements on animals.
While most might not use the reticle to range at all, we do every once in a while- probably one or two animals a year. This year it was elk running towards us during a snowfall and the laser RF couldn’t range due the interference. I used the reticle while my buddy tracked them and they measured between 3-4 mils back to brisket which would put them around 300 yards, he dialed for 300 and killed it as soon as it stopped. It ended up being 280’ish. Terrain was confusing and guessing the range we were off about a 100 yards.


Anyways, a quick ranging scale would be useful if it were out of the way.

Might be nice to incorporate a means to measure for minimum legal moose for those planning Alaska hunts

 

[Formidilosus]

Might be nice to incorporate a means to measure for minimum legal moose for those planning Alaska hunts

A mil reticle will do that easily. I’m trying to picture how you would do that with a specific ranging feature, as different areas of the country/world have different requirements, correct?

 

[Dioni A]

A mil reticle will do that easily. I’m trying to picture how you would do that with a specific ranging feature, as different areas of the country/world have different requirements, correct?

As far as I know just the Alaska 50-in minimum for non-residents in units where that applies.

 

[Formidilosus]

As far as I know just the Alaska 50-in minimum for non-residents in units where that applies.

Legit not arguing- just discussing:

The issue is the stadia/brackets like the ranging scale are just not precise enough. You can tell if a deer or elk for instance is closer to 300 yards than 400 yards, but you can’t tell whether something is 48” versus 54” at 190 yards for example. For that you need a much finer grading scale (mils) and do a quick measurement.

 

[Dobermann]

However, might I suggest an 18”/36” ranging scale like your silhouette scale on the bottom right. Marked 18” on left, 36” on right for back to brisket measurements on animals.

How's that going to work for the rest of the world who left the *imperial* system behind half a century ago?

 

[Formidilosus]

How's that going to work for the rest of the world who left the *imperial* system behind half a century ago?

Haha .5m and 1m will work fine. Same as the silhouette scale that is already in the THLR, just make it for common game animals- 18” and 36” covers most.

 

[Formidilosus]

How's that going to work for the rest of the world who left the *imperial* system behind half a century ago?

Poor mock-up, but something like this-

 

[Dobermann]

Poor mock-up, but something like this-

View attachment 383446

Still looks like it's in Imperial / old English units of measurement for the animal size ... would the distances then also be in yards, or meters?

Either way, 1776 was long ago ... decolonize your maths, already!

 

[Formidilosus]

Either way, 1776 was long ago ... decolonize your maths, already!

Heretic.

 

[Dobermann]

Heretic.

But in all seriousness - was the idea that the distance scale was also in yards not metres?

I'm guessing not metres ... pretty sure I learned from some guy around here years ago about the importance of not having something that relied on two different measurements (MOA/MIL in scopes, or using SFP).

But if in yards, then you'd be making a scope that was of almost no use to the entire market outside the US ...

This does point to an interesting dilemma ... if @THLR is trying to get up a new hunting option, and some of the rest of us are pushing scope manufacturers to adopt (some version of) his reticle, what would happen if we ended up with something that either didn't work for the US market, or the 'rest of the world' market ...

Would be interesting to see if we can come up with something that is universal / works for all.

 

[prm]

Poor mock-up, but something like this-

View attachment 383446

If I understand that diagram, the horizontal lines, center to edge are the 18” or 36” at the noted range. Aren’t 18”/36” (30”?) intended to roughly be deer or elk vertical chest measurements? If so, shouldn’t they be vertical?

 

[Formidilosus]

If I understand that diagram, the horizontal lines, center to edge are the 18” or 36” at the noted range. Aren’t 18”/36” (30”?) intended to roughly be deer or elk vertical chest measurements? If so, shouldn’t they be vertical?

From top to the line is the 18”/36” like this.



If the box is the chest of the animal, a deer would be 600 yards, an elk would be 300.


Just a quick mock-up, not saying that’s what it should look like.

 

[Formidilosus]

But in all seriousness - was the idea that the distance scale was also in yards not metres?

I'm guessing not metres ... pretty sure I learned from some guy around here years ago about the importance of not having something that relied on two different measurements (MOA/MIL in scopes, or using SFP).

But if in yards, then you'd be making a scope that was of almost no use to the entire market outside the US ...

This does point to an interesting dilemma ... if @THLR is trying to get up a new hunting option, and some of the rest of us are pushing scope manufacturers to adopt (some version of) his reticle, what would happen if we ended up with something that either didn't work for the US market, or the 'rest of the world' market ...

Would be interesting to see if we can come up with something that is universal / works for all.

All reticles with rapid ranging based on bracketing a silhouette or animal has the same issue. The maker has to decide whether the range is in meters or yards. For Americans that would actually use it, they could easily use or convert from meters. I personally wouldn’t care which.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Since I can't find it anywhere else, what's the mounting length on this scope? More importantly, does it work with the front to rear picatinny spacing on the sako s-20 or is a bastardized mounting set up required?

 

[Formidilosus]

Since I can't find it anywhere else, what's the mounting length on this scope?

A bit over 7” mounting length.

More importantly, does it work with the front to rear picatinny spacing on the sako s-20

Easily.

 

[Dobermann]

Here's another quick video that shows the reticle:

 

[Dobermann]

@Formidilosus: I know you're only just back ... but any updates on longevity for this puppy?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus: I know you're only just back ... but any updates on longevity for this puppy?

Still working great. Used a bunch and still the best FOV, eyebox, and reticle.

 

[Dobermann]

Still working great. Used a bunch and still the best FOV, eyebox, and reticle.

Thanks Form, that's really helpful!

And dangerous to know ...

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks Form, that's really helpful!

And dangerous to know ...

Yes indeed. It, and the Trijicon Tenmile have been damn good performers.