ZeroTech TRACE ADV 3-18×44 FFP Shoot2Hunt

[BAKPAKR]

Nah, but those Lee-oh-poles
They’ll getcha with their locked turrets

I was hoping to pick up a 4-16x42 cheap when that post started a panic sell-off.

 

[Formidilosus]

Understood in regards to this scope.

For clarification are locking turrets a patent issue also (if you are familiar)? I feel like that has been stated and not sure if you can clear that up or not.

No. Just the Leupold push button version.

 

[Formidilosus]

Should people be wary of their Nightforce ATACRs because of this?

No. Their locking turret is different and is the one that Leupold has the patent on.

 

[omicron1792]

I think March scopes have a shuriiken turret that locks by pushing and pulling a mechanism on top of the turret.

 

[43.6N]

I once owned a Mk5hd that would click when you touched the top of the turret while it was zero locked LOL

Hah. My mk4 has had the windage spin while “locked” two different times during matches. Beyond frustrating.

I should also mention that it’s a replacement mk4 from leupold after the first one started rotating the reticle under recoil.

 

[43.6N]

I was hoping to pick up a 4-16x42 cheap when that post started a panic sell-off.

Sorry bud, didn’t mean to ruin your master plan. But I got a mk4 id let you have.

*for contractual purposes this is not an actual sales offer

 

[freddyG]

A better, and simpler question- why doesn’t any of them just go to the range, zero their rifle, drop and it and then see what happens..?

Because you are correct with the statement that nobody actually shoots. It’s true.

 

[Okie_Poke]

A better, and simpler question- why doesn’t any of them just go to the range, zero their rifle, drop and it and then see what happens..?

Their response would be that the drop doesn’t test the scope. If it moves, something else slipped (e.g. the mounts or bedding). And even if it’s not the mounts/bedding and is the scope, it’s only a sample of 1 so it doesn’t prove anything. Everyone makes a lemon, including NightForce. Even if you test several of each model and it’s always the same, it’s still anecdotal because you’re not testing a statistically significant number of the population. So we just have to trust the manufacturers are testing for side impact zero retention because either they say they are, some consultant for the industry says they are, or the .mil would have a huge claim if they weren’t, or competition shooters don’t have problems and are hard on scopes. I think that was the gist. It was kinda hard to follow the exact arguments other than repeated appeals to authority.

I found those arguments largely unavailing and not really taking the time to understand what you are actually doing. But I have no dog in this fight. I’m in on the pre-order here but still have a vx5hd on one of my most used hunting rifles. I am planning to do a side by side comparison for my own sake when this scope comes in. I’ve said several times here and elsewhere that I find the drop tests very interesting but I’m not yet a full convert. Perhaps because I haven’t dropped my own scopes on purpose yet to test them. I’m still a walking contradiction, I guess.

 

[Formidilosus]

Their response would be that the drop doesn’t test the scope. If it moves, something else slipped (e.g. the mounts or bedding). And even if it’s not the mounts/bedding and is the scope, it’s only a sample of 1 so it doesn’t prove anything. Everyone makes a lemon, including NightForce. Even if you test several of each model and it’s always the same, it’s still anecdotal because you’re not testing a statistically significant number of the population. So we just have to trust the manufacturers are testing for side impact zero retention because either they say they are, some consultant for the industry says they are, or the .mil would have a huge claim if they weren’t, or competition shooters don’t have problems and are hard on scopes. I think that was the gist.

Oh I know what detractors say. However, it’s a total break from logical thinking.

When I get told “x” happens, yet I haven’t seen it. I ask how to recreate it- then I go and do it first. How am I going to call BS on something I have never even tried?

It was kinda hard to follow the exact arguments other than repeated appeals to authority.

You mean like “the military uses, so they just know”? While they write that on a site whose owner has stated that when he was a Marine scout sniper that they had to buy their own ammo because they weren’t issued enough to practice with…? Or the fact that when snipers go to the range, the very first thing they do is rezero because the Lot# of ammo they got that day is different than the last one they got a year ago… or that the USMC chose a NF for their MRAD’s- not the Mark 5, and there is a neat picture of them dropping one…

I found those arguments largely unavailing and not really taking the time to understand what you are actually doing. But I have no dog in this fight. I’m in on the pre-order here but still have a vx5hd on one of my most used hunting rifles. I am planning to do a side by side comparison for my own sake when this scope comes in. I’ve said several times here and elsewhere that I find the drop tests very interesting but I’m not yet a full convert. Perhaps because I haven’t dropped my own scopes on purpose yet to test them. I’m still a walking contradiction, I guess.

The point isn’t to make anyone a convert (except that zero retention is #1 priority for a field gun); it’s to get people to start checking their zero, tracking the movement of that zero, and stop making excuses for it. Find out what causes it, and eliminate it.

If no rifle system can be made to hold zero with normal, hard field use- then we have an existential problem that MUST be fixed. If a single rifle system can be made to hold zero through normal, hard field use- then ALL rifles can be made to hold zero. It’s a mechanical device, not magic.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The whole statistical anomaly argument is a bit absurd to me. Given the choice of two models, one of which has had a single failure that can be fairly attributed to the scope (per the rifle and rings Form uses to test it) and one which hasn’t yet failed, I am going with the latter. Particularly when it is way less expensive than the other one.

If the only scopes that ever passed Form’s test were from one brand that costs $5000 each, I would simply assume that the test was rigged or that affordable scopes just sucked and check them constantly. You know, the way I did with my old scopes. But the fact that scopes from several brands have passed - and then been consistently reliable for me when mounted per his guidance and used weekly - gives me confidence in his methods.

As it is, I check my scopes constantly anyway… because I use a couple of them at least every week (I wish it could be more often) and keep records of my observations for future reference.

I’m really looking forward to using this scope, both in practice and in the field. And if you want to find out my honest opinion of it, just look for a thread titled, “WTT 1x S2H scope for 2x SWFA 3-9x40 or 3x SWFA 10x gen2.” If you see that… then the next thread after it gets marked “Sold” will be my honest opinion.

 

[solarshooter]

I'll never forget the horror in my dad's eyes when I dropped his gun to test for his Viper losing zero. Turns out it was loose pic bases, but that look was worth at least 10 hrs of arguing on the internet.

 

[JF_Idaho]

@Formidilosus

Now that the S2H scope is going to be tested with a collimator (assuming there wasn't access to one previously) do you think you will add that testing to future scope evaluations?

I think if a collimator showed failures that would dispel a lot of myths surrounding the drop tests.

 

[ckt3]

The whole statistical anomaly argument is a bit absurd to me.

Agreed, and I don’t think the anomaly argument holds water statistically either. It is much more likely that the drop test scope is representative of the average scope than a lemon. In which case, even a failure at n=1 tells you meaningful information. Especially when you start getting n=1 failures across multiple models from the same manufacturer. Then p(bad design) >> p(lemon).

 

[nm.otter]

Their response would be that the drop doesn’t test the scope. If it moves, something else slipped (e.g. the mounts or bedding). And even if it’s not the mounts/bedding and is the scope, it’s only a sample of 1 so it doesn’t prove anything.

OK, I'll bite:
Something moved in my system. What was it? Break it down and find the source of the problem, fix it, and re-test.

 

[Okie_Poke]

OK, I'll bite:
Something moved in my system. What was it? Break it down and find the source of the problem, fix it, and re-test.

This probably didn’t come through, but in the first paragraph there I was trying to illustrate how deflective, circular, and defeatist the SH argument was. “It’s probably not the scope, but even if it is it’s just that particular scope and you just got an unlucky lemon and even if that’s not true we can’t possibly know it so there’s no point to test it just trust the mfg.”

I’m not fishing for an argument here.

 

[nm.otter]

Merely pointing out the absurdity of their 'logic'
...in no way directed at you.

 

[Idaho_bow_hunter]

It seems like the popular opinion is in favor of the THLR reticle, but I can't get over how odd it looks. I also feel like those thick portion of the crosshairs especially the bottom vertical one would get in the way of holdover. The RMG-H looks simpler, less cluttered and more traditional. After looking at both reticles, I would instinctively pick the RMG-H, I'm not sure what I'm missing.

 

[PopNFresh]

I read it as a dial elevation and hold wind reticule that leaves a little room to alter elevation on the reticule to compensate if plans change during making shots
it trades utilizing elevation on the reticule for easier/faster targeting at low power and wind adjustments

 

[streamerfish]

It seems like the popular opinion is in favor of the THLR reticle, but I can't get over how odd it looks. I also feel like those thick portion of the crosshairs especially the bottom vertical one would get in the way of holdover. The RMG-H looks simpler, less cluttered and more traditional. After looking at both reticles, I would instinctively pick the RMG-H, I'm not sure what I'm missing.

Others can explain better probably.

But in simplistic terms, The "thick" crosshairs, in particular the vertical one, is designed to to extremely usable at 3x/4x power, in the timber, low light, up close, etc. Its basically supposed to be a German #1/German #4 type reticle at low power. As you zoom the rest of the reticle comes into play.

It does have specific "hold over" marks. If you understand what they are....Like for most non mag speeds.....the bottom line of the square aiming bracket is .5mil, for most people thats gonna be +- 200yds (assuming 100yd zero). The dot inside the smaller holdover circle is 1mil, roughly 300yards. The tip of the thick vertical post is 1.6 mil. Roughly 350yd hold. Anything past that and your dialing by design (if not before).

Having said that, it is a FFP scope and it's designed to be dialed, not ran as a BDC, SFP type of scope.

I think the other reticle looks pretty decent as well, definitely more "traditional" but still improved i would say (although i'm not big on the illumination idea personally.) I don't think it will be as good in close range, dark timber hunting as the THLR variant. And just not as intuitive (to my eyes).

I haven't seen it in person yet. But for my personal use case....Which is a single scope that is a FFP dial scope, that I can use up close and personal in the dark timber, and at range (out to 400-500yds at animals potentially, practice/fun shooting further) The THLR is the best looking reticle on paper I have seen.

( I haven't pre-ordered, because I want to see it in person first, just to confirm what I imagine it will look like).

 

[mwoolsey5]

( I haven't pre-ordered, because I want to see it in person first, just to confirm what I imagine it will look like).

I totally get this because I’m very much in the, “I want to feel something in my hands” before committing, but just wanted to say from handling the two scopes at the hunt expo, it was exactly what I imagined and expected. There’s going to be a learning curve, because it’s new and packed with features, but man, I think this is going to shake up the scope industry for hunters.

Some of these scope companies that had been approached before ZT have to be sitting there like, “Ok…we ****** up”.