Trijicon Credo 3-9x40mm Q&A

[Luke S]

I was actually going to ask if Form or anyone else had an opinion on whether the 30mm tunes might be more durable. If I recall the Credo 3-18 did a bit better. Is that a statistical fluke or is the 30mm tube stronger?

 

[Formidilosus]

Glad to see this one tested. I have one and it’s been fine, but I didn’t feel the tests on the 30mm versions would really apply to this 1” scope. Perhaps Trijicon’s testing and design ultimately achieves similar durability with a different design. Seems reasonable so far.

I was actually going to ask if Form or anyone else had an opinion on whether the 30mm tunes might be more durable. If I recall the Credo 3-18 did a bit better. Is that a statistical fluke or is the 30mm tube stronger?

This 3-9x isn’t what the 3-18x Tenmile has been in zero retention from drops, or the 2.5-15x Credo. I would not expect it to be either. However, it is by far the best 1” normal, simple scope I have seen; with the SWFA UL 2.5-10x doing about the same in drops, but being a bit more critical in eyebox/eye relief. Like I have stated for years- Trijicons generally behave as most people thinks scopes do- not bombproof, but generally reliable scopes that tend to hold zero and work correctly.
If it continues to behave as it so far has, I would have little qualms about using it for what it’s made for- 0-300’ish yard shooting. The mil version might be a decent option for the people that only want to hold over out to 400 or 500 yards.

Having said that, between this scope at 17oz and the SWFA 6x or 3-9x at 19oz, the SWFA scopes are much better all around shooting/hunting aiming devices. This is a replacement for the 3-10x Leupold/Swaro/etc scopes, nothing more.

 

[Luke S]

Thanks Form. I agree the SWFA 3-9 (on my 30-06) is better but I only have one. So I ordered a Trijicon for my 308. It gets less use so I'm confident it will be acceptable. These tests make me feel even better about it.

 

[SouthPaw]

Updated.

Bolt shrouds are so overrated.

 

[Formidilosus]

Bolt shrouds are so overrated.

Indeed. It broke 2,000 plus rounds ago.

 

[Macintosh]

Form, on the tracking—you mentioned it may be off a bit because of erector travel. Scope is advertised at 50moa total travel, so 23.75 moa from your zero could realistically be bottoming out the erector…seems likely in my head. Did you test the scope at elevations closer to center? 12 or 14 moa is more than plenty for most common rifle cartridges to reach beyond where most hunters who choose a scope like this are going to want to shoot at game, even with pretty low BC bullets. Curious if you get a chance to see if it tracks more accurately nearer to the center of its realistic adjustment range?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, on the tracking—you mentioned it may be off a bit because of erector travel. Scope is advertised at 50moa total travel, so 23.75 moa from your zero could realistically be bottoming out the erector…seems likely in my head. Did you test the scope at elevations closer to center? 12 or 14 moa is more than plenty for most common rifle cartridges to reach beyond where most hunters who choose a scope like this are going to want to shoot at game,

I haven’t but will.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Doing the Lord's work as usual. How was the eye relief and eyebox? I hear negative things about them.

I am very particular about eye box and eye relief. I have two of these scopes. When I shoulder the rifles everything falls into place very comfortable and intuitively and eye relief is very good. It doesn't quite measure up to Leupold in this respect, but they are better than adequate.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

A word of caution on these scopes for anyone considering buying one. The power ring is deceptively large. The throw knob is fixed and larger than it needs to be. If your rifle has a 90 degree bolt throw and a straight bolt handle, think Christensen Mesa here, you are going to have clearance issues, especially if you like to keep the scope close to the bore line.

 

[Luke S]

Well I just double checked my Leopold after a drop test. It appeared to move about 4 moa after one 18 inch drop than it popped back. I drop it 3x from 3 ft. It now does several shots dead on than a couple will randomly move up and to the left about 4 moa. Best guess is something is loose. Funny because I thought it had survived some 18 inch drops on the past. My guess is something "moderated" those drops, i.e. the rifle dropped and the scope didn't take a direct hit. Maybe the barrel or stock hit first and slowed things down before the scope hit.

My Trijicon Huron 2.5-10x40 arrived. I really like it. I might actually stick it on my 30-06 moose rifle instead of the SWFA. Hard to say because I like both. Trijicon seems to have a bit better clarity at low light. Last fall i was counting points on a bull moose at last light on my last hunting day through my rifle scope. I like the 2.5x for up close, think grizzly. The SWFA is better if I want to quickly dial on the fly and shoot a caribou 400 yards. Decisions.

 

[roosiebull]

You are right, it’s not 3”, although a scope of “any nature” should work well enough not to shift.

The list that works seems to be a very, very short list

Almost none work well enough not to shift… almost. I have literally never owned a scope that was reliable, most didn’t shift very far, but they always shifted… I have completely started over, and have swfa and nightforce scopes to hopefully change the trend, I don’t have the means or resources to do the testing that Form does, and very much appreciate the testing, and the trends seem pretty straightforward…

I would rather have my favorite scope fail his testing miserably and know. I was pretty close to buying one of the worst scopes in the drop tests and felt like I was saved some headache, because most basic information doesn’t really tell the story, not the part that matters to me the most, especially in the world of scopes

 

[Macintosh]

A word of caution on these scopes for anyone considering buying one. The power ring is deceptively large. The throw knob is fixed and larger than it needs to be. If your rifle has a 90 degree bolt throw and a straight bolt handle, think Christensen Mesa here, you are going to have clearance issues, especially if you like to keep the scope close to the bore line.

Just mounted one of these on my wifes kimber 84m and I did find the throw knob is in the way. The bolt clears barely, but it’s a “mandatory knuckle-basher” at 9x when mounted normally. Its a non-issue on my 7600 and I quite like the knob, but the 9-oclock to 3-oclock placement is unfortunate for a bolt gun. We’ll use it for a bit and see how it goes, but likely going to have to take a dremel to it.

 

[Macintosh]

Also, because there has been at least one topic where someone felt the reticle was too thin to be useable for their uses: post#1 in the evaluation thread shows the reticle. Using another reticle as a tape measure against my 3-9 credo, it looks to me that the finer center-section of the reticle is about 15mils wide at low power (about 7.5mils to either side of center). Just a rough estimate but I think thats reasonably close. The reticle diagram on Trijicon‘s website shows the entire center section is 20 MOA wide, which is about six mils. I don’t think this is valid for low power, comparing it to other scopes that I have the thin portion of this reticle covers significantly more than six mils, so being a second focal plane scope my guess is this is valid only at 9X. I think people concerned with how thin the reticle is are likely to be using it in the woods at lowest magnification, so take that for what it’s worth.

I just finished looking through it in my back 40 as dusk approached, and while I dont think it will be problematic for me especially with a few minutes of illumination in low light, the fine center section is unnecessarily wide and for an eastern hunter worried about seeing the reticle against a noisy background it would probably have benefitted from carrying the thick portion of the crosshairs farther toward the center. This is the reticle image from the eval thread.

 

[Macintosh]

For what its worth…had to do a throw-leverectomy on the scope for my wifes kimber. I masked off the scope and everything below the cut line. Used a handheld hacksaw to cut the bulk of it off, then a dremel to clean it up. Finished with some 220grit on a sanding block followed by regular old black automotive etching primer. Now the throw lever is a non issue. Bummer because I really like the throw lever, its just in a stupid position and way sharper than it needs to be.
On the plus side, this gun that I could never get to shoot very well is now consistently putting 5 shots into an inch, which is less than half the size of the smallest groups it ever shot wearing “that other scope”, using the same ammo.

 

[freddyG]

On the plus side, this gun that I could never get to shoot very well is now consistently putting 5 shots into an inch, which is less than half the size of the smallest groups it ever shot wearing “that other scope”, using the same ammo.

I wonder how much of the “Kimber roulette” can be attributed to using Leupold scopes? Since that seems to be the scope used most on those rifles, because it was sacrilege to use a heavy scope on a light rifle.

I personally have never had a bad shooting Kimber, and I’ve had a pile of them.

 

[prm]

Also, because there has been at least one topic where someone felt the reticle was too thin to be useable for their uses: post#1 in the evaluation thread shows the reticle. Using another reticle as a tape measure against my 3-9 credo, it looks to me that the finer center-section of the reticle is about 15mils wide at low power (about 7.5mils to either side of center). Just a rough estimate but I think thats reasonably close. The reticle diagram on Trijicon‘s website shows the entire center section is 20 MOA wide, which is about six mils. I don’t think this is valid for low power, comparing it to other scopes that I have the thin portion of this reticle covers significantly more than six mils, so being a second focal plane scope my guess is this is valid only at 9X. I think people concerned with how thin the reticle is are likely to be using it in the woods at lowest magnification, so take that for what it’s worth.

I just finished looking through it in my back 40 as dusk approached, and while I dont think it will be problematic for me especially with a few minutes of illumination in low light, the fine center section is unnecessarily wide and for an eastern hunter worried about seeing the reticle against a noisy background it would probably have benefitted from carrying the thick portion of the crosshairs farther toward the center. This is the reticle image from the eval thread.

The illuminated MIL reticle on the 3-9 works great in low light.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The illuminated MIL reticle on the 3-9 works great in low light.
View attachment 620152

Does it adjust in mil too? That looks like a great reticle for how I use my inline

 

[prm]

Does it adjust in mil too? That looks like a great reticle for how I use my inline

Yes, .1 MIL clicks

 

[letrbuck]

Form, or anyone else for that matter, do you happen to know of the Huron and Ascent lines have the same internals? Or to be phrased differently, should I expect similar results from a 3-9 Huron? (299 currently at Eurooptic has me quite curious)

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, or anyone else for that matter, do you happen to know of the Huron and Ascent lines have the same internals? Or to be phrased differently, should I expect similar results from a 3-9 Huron? (299 currently at Eurooptic has me quite curious)

I have no idea sir.