Tanget Theta 3-15x50mm Scope Evaluation

[Formidilosus]

For comparison, this is the Minox THLR reticle at 15x.

797-

 

[Formidilosus]

Hate that this is another "would you try one of these scopes‽" posts but it would be interesting to see a March scope tested. They claim up to 1000g of shock testing before sending a scope out.

March does not make a model of scope or reticle that is useful to me for field shooting. I don’t mean that they’re not good scopes, they may well be, but they don’t offer anything compelling for field shooting.


As for the 1,000g thing, and the shakers, etc. That’s all well and good, but it’s not testing for a static erector, aka- zero retention.

 

[Antares]

@Formidilosus, what do you think about that THLR reticle? I find it busy, but I’ll also admit I don’t understand a lot of it.

 

[PNWGATOR]

The THLR in a correctly designed Nightforce is the solution….

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus, what do you think about that THLR reticle? I find it busy, but I’ll also admit I don’t understand a lot of it.

It isn’t busy at all. Literally the best reticle for hunting on the market- from the muzzle to as far as you want to shoot. Takes about 5 minutes of looking and discussing to understand and after a day of shooting you’ll be pissed you can’t get it in other scopes. I would pay $500 per, right now to get it put in every 3-9x SWFA I have.






10 yards, 5x-

 

[F0steology]

Aside from the Minox ZP5 is the reticle (THLR) available in any other scope?

 

[Formidilosus]

Aside from the Minox ZP5 is the reticle (THLR) available in any other scope?

Nope.

 

[Antares]

It isn’t busy at all.

Really? I have no doubt it's thoughtfully designed and superbly useful, but it is certainly on the busy end of the spectrum.

 

[Formidilosus]

Really? I have no doubt it's thoughtfully designed and superbly useful, but it is certainly on the busy end of the spectrum.

It isn’t a Horus. When you use it, the things that look busy on paper disappear unless you are specifically looking for them. In use this is what you’re brain tends to see-




Every person that has used it has said the same thing- “it’s busy” and then after shooting a bit, everything but the main reticle just kind of disappears.
The main reticle is just .2 mil increments, but they are so fine that you don’t really see them unless you look for it. It’s weird and I didn’t get it until shooting with it. Notice how the lines get thicker as you move away from the center. What it causes is an effect that on low power (check pic above) it’s just a German #4. As you go up in power more of the reticle is visible. At 6x basically a reticle with ticks every 1 mil, expect for the center which has the box making that first mil broken down into .5. Mil. At 10x or so, it a .5 mil reticle, with the center .2 ticks just barely visible. At 15x the .2’s are visible but not obvious. By 18-20x the whole .2 mil scheme is obvious.


It sounds complicated, it isn’t. There’s also a clever wind “bracketing” scheme in there that is extremely easy to learn and use for out to about 600 yards.

 

[Formidilosus]

Really?

@PNWGATOR will see it next week, and he can give his thoughts if he wants.

 

[madcalfe]

how do you like the ZP5?

 

[Formidilosus]

how do you like the ZP5?

I’m going to give my thoughts in another thread, however it was gotten to eval the reticle. I will say that what I’ve seen before the ZP5’s are not bombproof. Generally decent, but not ultra durable- about like a lot of S&B’s. That is based on limited exposure, so until seeing further- take it for what it’s worth. Also what I’m seeing with this one, is just one scope- just like the TT. Again, take it for what it worth.



As for things other than ultra durability- it is quite good. The TT here has been a “meh” reaction on almost all points. Everything about it has been underwhelming. The ZP5 is not. It’s huge, but really is a pleasure to use. The reticle of course, but the eyebox is very forgiving, the turret feel is excellent- quite stiff but extremely positive; the clarity, resolution, and color “pop” is exceptional. The field of view and depth of focus is fantastic. There are basically two parallax settings- under 200’ish and over 200’ish.

If they were, or prove to be reliable and durable enough, even with its size and weight I would choose to use it on my hunting rifles.

 

[madcalfe]

perfect thanks for the quick review the zp5 3-15x50 has caught my eye

 

[madcalfe]

You might already know, but the 3-15 ZP5 is basically the exact same optical design as the Tangent 3-15 variants. They more or less precipitated from the Premier Heritage designs from Optronika. I still kick myself for not picking up two or three during EuroOptics 50% off deal a couple years ago.

no i actually didnt know that!
im currently running a kahles k318i, love it, have no issues with it but got a itch to try somethings else lol

 

[madcalfe]

I had the K525i for a bit. That was a great scope in a lot of ways. I don't think they compete with the other $3,000+ scopes that I've had, but Kahles is a solid contender in the sub $2,500 range. I'm now a fan of left side windage and wish I could swap my Tangent & ZCO's to LSW, LOL.

Did you find somewhere that is selling the 3-15 Minox's? I kinda thought that line is (or was going to be) discontinued? Unless you find a great deal on the secondary market, save up for the 4-20 ZCO. Probably the best do-everything optic on the market IME. And coming from the Kales, the weight increase won't be THAT bad, haha.

yess i know a place that has them in stock.

 

[Formidilosus]

Does your TT sample not have forgiving parallax?

No, it does. Didn’t mean to suggest it wasn’t. Directly compared today to the ZP5 it wasn’t quite as good. The parallax was fine, but focus/clarity wasn’t as good when switching ranges.

The Tangent's eyebox isn't the best out there either IMO. I think ZCO takes the cake there (at least my 2 samples based on the optics I've owned & used). That's not to say the Tangent is bad, there's just better out there.

Exactly. Eyebox is “meh”.

Contrast, Resolution, and Color are phenomenal in both Tangent and ZCO. I don't go too crazy over glass, but IME, Tangent edges out the ZCO, which is better than Kahles, which is better than ATACR.

So the contrast is quite good in this one, but color rendition isn’t spectacular- the ZP5 is clearly better of the two for everyone that has looked through them both. And actually the TT and 4-16 ATACR Milspec were similar today, if not a bit favoring the ATACR, but the eyebox and overall view and ease of use is better on this 4-16x ATACR.

Just curious, if you were looking to evaluate a Tangent in the context of hunting, why not the "M" or "H" series? I don't see a hunter choosing the "P" variant with the other two options on the table.

I wasn’t really looking to. I was asked to and sent this scope to see how it fared (no, it’s not from a competing company).

 

[Formidilosus]

Mounted a NF 3-515x50 F1 Milspec with mil dot reticle. This scope is about ten years old, has seen a lot of rounds, and a lot of abuse. But still going strong.

Mounted as per normal-



One shot at a rock, the next one on paper, high left. Read the reticle and came down 1.0 mil, and right .5, and same as the first “group” with the TT, shot 7 more rounds in the orange.



I went a tenth too far, sue me- it’s a standard MD. Dialed left .1 and a proof shot-



Then completed the exact same drop sequence as the TT-



After the drops, shot another round into the proof (top left red square). Whole target-



So I went ahead and dropped it another handful of times (10-12) from between 4 and 5 feet. Then shot one round (top right square)-





Then just to see, dropped 20’ish times from 5-7 feet on all sides. Then one shot at this tape-






This, is a scope that holds zero. This is how scopes are supposed to work. After doing the above, I shot another 40-50 rounds out to 1100m, from multiple positions, and then can back and shot two rounds to check zero- it was still zeroed of course.

 

[Formidilosus]

Holy shit! That’s not close to my experience with my Tangent, or anything I’ve read/heard from anyone. I haven’t owned the 7-35 ATACR, but from what I’ve owned/used, the ATACR line is easily a step or 2 below TT/ZCO.

Well to be clear- I’m not saying anything concrete. That’s just from shooting and looking at targets and into the trees on an overcast day. And, the ATACR is a Milspec- maybe has better than normal glass- don’t know. Also, this could be the worse TT ever made.


I’m not making any definite statements on a sample if one.

 

[Antares]

@PNWGATOR will see it next week, and he can give his thoughts if he wants.

I’d love to hear more about it sometime.

 

[Formidilosus]

The TT is mounted in a .22 now, and it’ll get shot some more, but its pretty much over.



What was found and my thoughts.

I want to be clear, again, that this is one scope. That doesn’t tell us much, though a single scope doing poorly has a higher chance of it being a common thing.


Function:

Quite plainly a failure. This is the single most important trait a scope must posses, and this scope failed at every aspect of function- zero retention, zero retention with impacts, consistent and repeatable adjustments, and return to zero. “Tracking”, that is correct adjustments seemed fine before the first drop. Well actually nothing stood out as poor before the drops. While I know that there are some differences, this is about the same results that the original Premier versions exhibited. Almost zero doubt that the first set of 18” drops killed it. Because from then on it started doing weird things. A foot and half drop onto very soft muddy ground, with a padded mat on top, should not cause issues.



Reticle:

The Gen 2 XR sucks. Not harping in this. The Gen 2 XR wasn’t my choice. From what I remember of the other reticles they weren’t terrible. This one is maybe the worst reticle for field shooting from any legit scope I’ve used.


Turret feel and design:

The tool less rezero of the turrets is neat, and seems to work fine. The clicks are distinct and audible, I think most would really like how they feel. But like the over emphasis on “glass”, over emphasis on turret feel beyond acceptable is silly nonsense.


Usability, eyebox, parallax, etc:

Overall I’m left with a shoulder shrug towards these things. The eyebox is nothing special, and the overall view and ease of use isn’t anything special. The parallax is very forgiving, though image quality goes down slightly when changing distances without adjusting the parallax.


Glass:

The least important feature for field use. Once Leupold VX3 level of glass is achieved, you’re not missing because the glass isn’t good enough in the field. I don’t give a flip about sitting at a bench and staring through a scope as if it’s a telescope or spotter. It’s an aiming device, it’s supposed to help steer bullets. For what it’s worth I have no vision issue- 20/13 right, 20/10 left. Color vision is excellent, and no astigmatism or any other issues.

Having said all that- I found it overall underwhelming. I know that’s going to make people call BS, but multiple people agree that
used it. There’s nothing that stands out. Resolution seems good, contrast seems good, clarity is good all the way to the edge, but it’s a bit muted in colors compared to the one Minox ZP5, but nothing stand out. And that wouldn’t necessarily be bad if mechanically it was solid.




Overall thoughts:

As I stated- the whole experience is one of “meh”. This isn’t me taking a crack at TT or trying to claim anything nefarious. It’s just what it is. I don’t care at all what others say, or the reputation, or perception something gets. It is a fact that peoples perception is affected by what they are told beforehand. That has been demonstrated in psych study continuously.
You take two identical items, cover them so they can’t see labels, and tell people that item “A” is amazing, and item “B” is mediocre, they will universally “see” that item “A” is better. This works with scopes. I have watched repeatedly people have to juggle with scopes to get zeroed, and then claim it works perfectly. Because “everyone knows that this is the best”. I’m not saying that TT’s aren’t good optically- Ilya Koshkin says they are, and enough others do, that I believe them- most TT’s are probably great. This one shows nothing wowing at all. And on a mechanical side…. It is a total failure.


I guess it comes down to two options really-

1). This is the worst TT ever made in mechanics. And the worst one ever made in glass. And the worst one ever made in “ease of use”.

Or

2). People that buy TT’s (or any other scope) do not use them hard and therefore issues largely go unnoticed?


I say this, because somehow I either get every single garbage scope that almost every manufacture makes, or people really don’t use their stuff hard.