Tanget Theta 3-15x50mm Scope Evaluation

[chicoredneck]

Form, not to hijack but curious. Have you had a chance to test the new LRHS? I have a first gen and it’s been fantastic. I’m between a new LRHS or a Tract Toric PRS for my next rifle right now.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, not to hijack but curious. Have you had a chance to test the new LRHS? I have a first gen and it’s been fantastic. I’m between a new LRHS or a Tract Toric PRS for my next rifle right now.

No sir. The old ones, yes. No new ones.

 

[dirtytough]

Thanks for the thread. You saved me some money.

 

[TX_Diver]

So in summary are SWFAs the only sub $1k scopes worth buying? Maybe a NF SHV? Even used NXS 2.5-10s start getting over the $1k range pretty quick...

I like my SWFA so far (mainly just because they are "cheap" and functional). But seems like you are a strong advocate for them based on other experiences and the cheap part is just an added bonus.

Have a 6x and a 3-15 and would love to find a decent priced 3-9 but not a huge priority right now with some other recent purchases.

Interesting review on the TT though. Thanks for posting!

 

[woods89]

Impressive showing on that Nightforce.

I want them to make a SHV 3-10 F1 Mil/Mil with the THLR reticle.

 

[Formidilosus]

So in summary are SWFAs the only sub $1k scopes worth buying? Maybe a NF SHV? Even used NXS 2.5-10s start getting over the $1k range pretty quick...

Suitable for general hunting and dialing, SWFA fixed 6 and 10x, 3-9x, 3-15x is decent, NF SHV and used NXS. If not dialing, the S&B Klassiks do well.

I like my SWFA so far (mainly just because they are "cheap" and functional). But seems like you are a strong advocate for them based on other experiences and the cheap part is just an added bonus.

Price has no factor for me. They are solid aiming devices regardless of price.

 

[Formidilosus]

Impressive showing on that Nightforce.

I want them to make a SHV 3-10 F1 Mil/Mil with the THLR reticle.

So do I. A 3-12, the same would be fantastic.

 

[Dioni A]

@Formidilosus what's your thoughts on the swfa ultra lights?

 

[Dobermann]

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.

Hi Form,

What percentage of that choice would be due to how you rate the reticle for field use?

In other words, how much would the THLR reticle play in your thoughts on this - or is it more the overall package?

 

[CaptArab]

I own a couple nightforce products, but as a company they really irritate me.

Now I'm speaking from ignorance as I have no idea how the biz side of an optics company works, but it irks me that they don't offer what we need.

An NX8 1-8 with the dmx reticle.

Decent hunting reticle in the baby atacr.

Make the NX8 2.5-20 a 5x or 6x so as to eliminate the BS.

A mil reticle / ffp shv 3-10 or nxs 2.5-10.

I'm just a casual shooter forum browser dude but it seems like what the market actually needs should be obvious.

I hate supporting China but I just bought an athlon 2 - 12 (And I don't even expect it to work properly) just because it's the only optic on the market with the feature set I want.

They could literally copy the specs and reticle on the athlon, hire someone to build a version that will work, and sell it to me for > $2k and I'd be happy.

The recce crowd would probably even scoop them up and mount offset red dots.

It's literally the only optic 90% of folks need.

I just don't get where these folks heads are at.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hi Form,

What percentage of that choice would be due to how you rate the reticle for field use?

In other words, how much would the THLR reticle play in your thoughts on this - or is it more the overall package?

Not exactly sure what you’re asking. The THLR reticle would be the only reason I would use massive scope on a hunting rifle. However, the reticle doesn’t change the FOV, DOF, eyebox, eye relief, etc. the 5-25x ZP5 is a very easy scope to get behind.

 

[Formidilosus]

Now I'm speaking from ignorance as I have no idea how the biz side of an optics company works, but it irks me that they don't offer what we need.

An NX8 1-8 with the dmx reticle.

It is very expensive to design a new reticle, especially the technology for the reticle in the 1-8x. Not making an excuse for them, but NF is a very small company.

Decent hunting reticle in the baby atacr.

Make the NX8 2.5-20 a 5x or 6x so as to eliminate the BS.

A mil reticle / frp shv 3-10 or nxs 2.5-10.

I'm just a casual shooter forum browser dude but it seems like what the market actually needs should be obvious..

The recce crowd would probably even scoop them up and mount offset red dots.

It's literally the only optic 90% of folks need.

I just don't get where these folks heads are at.

I’ll answer this in one fell swoop- the market doesn’t want those things. Plain and simple. The noise from the people clamoring for more magnification, bigger zoom ratios, smaller size, more features, “glass”, thinner reticles, etc., WAY over shadows those asking for practical things like reliability, mid range magnification, reticles that can be seen and used at all powers, sensible size and weight, eye box, FOV/DOF, etc.

The vast majority of people don’t actually shoot. They stare at there rifles and plink from a bench. Therefore they don’t care about things that matter in the field.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus what's your thoughts on the swfa ultra lights?

Haven’t used them enough to say. A SFP, BDC reticle scope isn’t very useful to how shoot. What I have seen is they generally work, but nothing on heavy use.

 

[dreamingWest]

Decent hunting reticle in the baby atacr.

Make the NX8 2.5-20 a 5x or 6x so as to eliminate the BS.

A mil reticle / frp shv 3-10 or nxs 2.5-10.

I'm just a casual shooter forum browser dude but it seems like what the market actually needs should be obvious..

The recce crowd would probably even scoop them up and mount offset red dots.

It's literally the only optic 90% of folks need.

I just don't get where these folks heads are at.

I’ll answer this in one fell swoop- the market doesn’t want those things. Plain and simple. The noise from the people clamoring for more magnification, bigger zoom ratios, smaller size, more features, “glass”, thinner reticles, etc., WAY over shadows those asking for practical things like reliability, mid range magnification, reticles that can be seen and used at all powers, sensible size and weight, eye box, FOV/DOF, etc.

The vast majority of people don’t actually shoot. They stare at there rifles and plink from a bench. Therefore they don’t about things that matter in the field.

There is so much truth to both of these comments.
Frustrating.

 

[260madman]

@CaptArab

I bought a 2-12 Helos also. I’m hoping it holds up. If nothing else it has a Vortex warranty so they will cover anything.

The dot is a bit bigger than needed and the glass is average. People say it’s equivalent to a VX3 but evidently nobody looks through scopes in shit light conditions but me? IDK. It needs some wind holds at the center. It’s a usable reticle on 2x like a duplex and the illumination is nuclear bright on mine. Turrets feel good and they lock. For $500 I’m taking a chance. It will work decent for hunting.

Okay, back to the TT. I’m interested in what they’ll say. SH is awfully defensive of TT and act like nothing could destroy one and one of the vendors will say it’s the shooter but obviously it’s not.

 

[yycyak]

Well, I'm going back to these:

Kidding, but these threads sure make a guy wonder sometimes...

 

[yycyak]

You can’t live your life in fear man. If you spend too much time on the internet, you’ll think every piece of equipment will implode if you look at it wrong. Plenty of info out there to justify either end of a purchase for about anything. You’ll only get experience by actually buying stuff, using it, and figuring out what works for you.

Haha I don't disagree. Fortunately I give @Formidilosus mad credit. His posts and commentary got me switched on to Tikkas and SWFA's/LRHS/Scopes that work. (Still havent made the jump to 6.5 Creedmoor - I just can't quit the 30-06.)

When I was at the range the other week, a buddy of mine said "dude thats the first time I haven't seen you tweaking your scope and gear." Having stuff that works right every time is a very nice thing.

Having said that, No4 Lee Enfield iron sights probably have a pretty good track record of staying zeroed.

 

[JohnJohnson]

If you think the erector is bound up, would that have anything to do with using threadlocker on the scope ring screws before torquing? Wet torque isn't the same as dry if I remember. I don't care either way I'm happy enough with my NF SHV but just a thought.

 

[Cynoscion]

 

[Dobermann]

Not exactly sure what you’re asking. The THLR reticle would be the only reason I would use massive scope on a hunting rifle. However, the reticle doesn’t change the FOV, DOF, eyebox, eye relief, etc. the 5-25x ZP5 is a very easy scope to get behind.

Yep, probably didn't phrase the question well ... was trying to ask something along the lines of: if the ZP5 was reliable, is the main reason you'd choose it the THLR reticle?

I get that the reticle doesn't change the other features - I was wondering how much weight you'd put on that reticle compared to the FOV, DOF, eyebox, and eye relief / the rest of the 'whole package' combined.