Trijicon 3-9x40 credo vs accupoint

[wyosam]

Trying to decide on scope for a (mostly) non dialing scope, where weight and durability is a concern. While not a full pass, the credo did well in Forms testing. Anyone have experience with these two scopes? Are the turrets and construction pretty similar? Accupoint is about 3 oz lighter, doubt that is all in battery vs passive illumination.

Use is a lightweight model 7 in 257 Rob improved. Generally a 400 and in first shot rifle, most use will be 3 and in. Load has velocity for terminal performance to 500 with some cushion (I shoot monos), but if I’m thinking about shooting that far, it’s not my first choice rifle.

Other options <18oz and under $700 street price I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hereinaz]

@gr8fuldoug at Cameraland mentioned a couple new and light GPO scopes.

At that range, just hold over?

 

[wyosam]

@gr8fuldoug at Cameraland mentioned a couple new and light GPO scopes.

At that range, just hold over?

Yes, absolutely a hold over scope. Ideally it has a helpful reticle, but at those ranges I’ve gotten by with limited reticle help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

Will watch this thread, as I own 2 credo 3-9’s but interested in some of the accupoint models. Only real thing to watch on the 3-9 imo is clearance of your bolt handle if it’s to go on a bolt gun. I had to do a throw-lever-ectomy on one of my 3-9 credos (other credo models it is adjustable), interested how the accupoint is or isnt different. Once “adjusted” I like them a lot.

 

[wyosam]

I’ve noticed that, and am steadying myself for taking a dremel tool to it as soon as it’s function tested. Not an easy thing to do!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

I have a larger (5-20) Mil-dot Accupoint and several of the Credo 3-9.

The biggest difference, other than the source of illumination, is the reticle construction. The Credo's all have etched reticles and the Accupoint has a physical wire reticle (due to the fiberoptic).

Personally, I find the physical crosswire in the Accupoint more visible in more lighting conditions than the etched reticles, even when they are the same dimension. For instance the 5-20 has a .05 Mil "thick" crosshair at 20X but it is much easier to see for me than the .05 Mil reticle in the Credo 3-9.

I assume that the crosshair thickness on the Accupoint at 20X to cover .05Mil would have to be physically thinner than the same .05 Mil covered at 9X on the Credo to not block too much of the target and should be less prominent or at least the same as the Credo but it is noticeably more prominent to my eyes.

I don't know if that is because of it being a physical wire it blocks more light and makes it "Pop" more to my eyes or if it is something else.

Also

The Credo is built in Japan (I think by LOW).

The Accupoint is built in Wixom MI out of sourced components (I don't think Trijicon makes their own glass).

From my research a wire reticle is less durable than an etched reticle if that is of concern to you. The physical wire reticle could break due to shock forces while the etched reticle could not break short of the lense itself cracking.

I all honesty, if I had to do it over again, I personally, would probably go with the Accupoint 3-9 over the Credo due to the noticeably easier to see reticle (for me) and lighter weight and just deal with the MOA adjustments.

However, I don't think the difference is big enough to make the change over since I already have the Credo and I prefer mil adjustments.

ETA: There is a difference in the quoted eye relief specifications. The Accupoint is shorter. I have 3 of the 3-9X40 Credos mounted on T3X rifles with medium DNZ rings and I don't have any trouble with eye relief through the whole range from any shooting position. I am 5'11" and around 160 lbs if that helps give an idea of the eye relief mounted.

 

[wyosam]

I have a larger (5-20) Mil-dot Accupoint and several of the Credo 3-9.

The biggest difference, other than the source of illumination, is the reticle construction. The Credo's all have etched reticles and the Accupoint has a physical wire reticle (due to the fiberoptic).

Personally, I find the physical crosswire in the Accupoint more visible in more lighting conditions than the etched reticles, even when they are the same dimension. For instance the 5-20 has a .05 Mil "thick" crosshair at 20X but it is much easier to see for me than the .05 Mil reticle in the Credo 3-9.

I assume that the crosshair thickness on the Accupoint at 20X to cover .05Mil would have to be physically thinner than the same .05 Mil covered at 9X on the Credo to not block too much of the target and should be less prominent or at least the same as the Credo but it is noticeably more prominent to my eyes.

I don't know if that is because of it being a physical wire it blocks more light and makes it "Pop" more to my eyes or if it is something else.

Also

The Credo is built in Japan (I think by LOW).

The Accupoint is built in Wixom MI out of sourced components (I don't think Trijicon makes their own glass).

From my research a wire reticle is less durable than an etched reticle if that is of concern to you. The physical wire reticle could break due to shock forces while the etched reticle could not break short of the lense itself cracking.

I all honesty, if I had to do it over again, I personally, would probably go with the Accupoint 3-9 over the Credo due to the noticeably easier to see reticle (for me) and lighter weight and just deal with the MOA adjustments.

However, I don't think the difference is big enough to make the change over since I already have the Credo and I prefer mil adjustments.

Thanks- that is helpful info. Hadn’t caught the etched vs wire reticle difference. My other two hunting rifles have the Credo 2.5-15 which I really like thus far, so my gut is telling me to stick with the same line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MThuntr]

I don't know the differences between a lot of the Trijicons so I apologize if this isn't a consideration but I got a Trijicon 3-9 BDC from EuroOptic for $300. For basic needs, it may be a worthy alternative.

Trijicon Huron 3-9x40 BDC Hunter Holds, 1 in., Satin Black Riflescope 2700006

FREE SHIPPING on Trijicon Huron 3-9x40 BDC Hunter Holds, 1 in., Satin Black Riflescope 2700006

www.eurooptic.com

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

Thanks- that is helpful info. Hadn’t caught the etched vs wire reticle difference. My other two hunting rifles have the Credo 2.5-15 which I really like thus far, so my gut is telling me to stick with the same line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have one of the Credo 2.5-15 as well and I find the reticle hard to see without the illumination in shadows/mottled backgrounds. (I have it on a varmint rifle because of that)

If you don't have trouble with it, the Credo Mil-Square reticle on the 3-9 will really stand out for you.

Since you already have Mil based adjustments/hold overs, I would definitely go with the Credo 3-9X40 because even the Mil-dot Accupoint 3-9X40 uses 1/4 MOA adjustments. (As does my brother's 5-20X50 that I have)

I think the only Accupoint that doesn't is the 2.5-12.5X42 version.

 

[bnsafe]

I really like my accupoint 3x9x40. If they made a 50 that would be my go to scope. Its light weight for sure. Eye relief and bolt issues are non existent for me, and glass is very good. I love the glow and dont have to worry about batteries, and it self regulates how brite it is. Almost like aiming a red dot only a clear scope. I will say, I feel like I have a much bigger field of view with my 3xx9x50 leupold freedom. It just seems like the trijicon is smaller even tho the specs are about the same. If I had faith in the freedoms construction I think its better for my eyes than the accupoint for cheaper. Just dont trust it even tho I used it for 3 years and never had a issue.

 

[wyosam]

I really like my accupoint 3x9x40. If they made a 50 that would be my go to scope. Its light weight for sure. Eye relief and bolt issues are non existent for me, and glass is very good. I love the glow and dont have to worry about batteries, and it self regulates how brite it is. Almost like aiming a red dot only a clear scope. I will say, I feel like I have a much bigger field of view with my 3xx9x50 leupold freedom. It just seems like the trijicon is smaller even tho the specs are about the same. If I had faith in the freedoms construction I think its better for my eyes than the accupoint for cheaper. Just dont trust it even tho I used it for 3 years and never had a issue.

Know the feeling. In the midst of purging scopes that have performed well, but trust has eroded. Like so many other times, I’d be happier and have more money in my pocket if I stayed off the internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JKE_352]

I don’t have an accupoint to compare to, but I do have a 3-9x40 credo, and 2-10x36 ffp credo.

The 3-9 is certainly clear, trim, and serviceable for your needs. I don’t care for the apparent FOV, or lack there of, atleast that’s what I call it. I like to see as little of the tube as possible while sighting, and that optic has more than I care for. I’ve been thinking of parting with mine.

The 2-10 however is money for its application and price point, in my opinion.

 

[wyosam]

I wish they offered that 2-10 in a SFP. I’d own several.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JKE_352]

I wish they offered that 2-10 in a SFP. I’d own several.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, it would be excellent for a GP hunting optic. I took mine whitetail hunting this year just because, mounted on a 6.5G gas gun (it was 28 and windy aluminum was a poor choice). It did fine, the illumination makes the lower magnification useable, although not ideal.

 

[Fritz D]

I went with the Credo 3-9x over the Accupoint because I happen to prefer the reticle(mil square) of the Credo.