ResearchinStuff
WKR
the mil version will definitely be worth a test.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
If this eval goes sideways the entirety of SnipersHide is going to implode
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
It’s all worth it though.
You might be right. I'd like to see a few ZCO samples pass, but will settle for just one to start. I don't own any, but have considered the 420.If this eval goes sideways the entirety of SnipersHide is going to implode
+1. I'd like to see an XTR II as well. I think that they had a design or process change not too long ago. That sort of went under the radar. At least for me.It would be interesting to see Burris XTR 3 would pass
I had debated between the ATACR 4-20 and the ZCO for a long time, I settled on the ATACR and it’s been a no headache deal that just works. That said, the ZCO has a better reticle at lower magnification than the Mil C and is more compact. If it survives the drop test and 3k rounds I may give it another lookYou might be right. I'd like to see a few ZCO samples pass, but will settle for just one to start. I don't own any, but have considered the 420.
This is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that a lot of ZCO and TT end up on heavy rifles (i.e. low recoil) so if warranty returns are low due to those applications then the manufacturer doesn't get much input for improvement.
Apparently there have been some ZCO with stiff parallax adjustments, but I don't know much about it. Just heard chatter. Might be excessive grease or some other simple explanation.
Broken parallax mechanism is a bigger concern. Not a ton of samples and all recoil induced (i.e. not impact) as far as I know. Don't know round counts but it doesn't sound like infant mortality.
The drop eval is an accelerated life test in some ways, so if there is a design or assembly issue with the parallax then hopefully it shows itself quickly.
Good deal, thanks for the info. I am/was in a similar boat - ZCO vs ATAC-R.I had debated between the ATACR 4-20 and the ZCO for a long time, I settled on the ATACR and it’s been a no headache deal that just works. That said, the ZCO has a better reticle at lower magnification than the Mil C and is more compact. If it survives the drop test and 3k rounds I may give it another look
And assuming the ZCO works, I still think for most people ATACR + Tikka .223 (if they don’t own one already) or ATACR + more ammo wins most of the time. The ATACR works, and only if the cost difference between doesn’t impact their ammo budget should they go with the ZCO in my opinion.Good deal, thanks for the info. I am/was in a similar boat - ZCO vs ATAC-R.
The thing with this is people need to understand that they’re testing their system, not necessarily the optic. Form and Ryan have put so much work into removing variables that most people don’t even consider. For instance, how do you know a .2mil shift isn’t from the action shifting slightly? What type of caliber are we shooting and how stable is the cone relative to barrel life? Do we all have confirmed bulletproof scopes that we can use as a control? How competent and consistent is the shooter behind the gun?If form damages it you're in the same situation.
I really, really appreciate what form and Ryan are doing for us here, but I also think it's essential that we each test our own stuff. If anything, these tests have shown that the weakest link varies, and if you're not testing your stuff to verify function you're not really increasing your systems reliability.