Tangent Theta vs ZCO vs Schmidt vs Kahles

I've had both the TT 315 & the ZCO 420.
Both excellent optics. Decided I need more magnification on the top end. Only problem for me on a lighter build is optics with 30+ on the top end are typically Big & Heavy.
Got a couple NF in the safe I may run for now.
4-32's have not given me trouble Yet.

lancetkenyon said:

TT>ZCO>S&B........>Kahles.

I am a self-aware glass snob.
I now own 6 TT, 2 Premiers, 2 ZCO, 3 S&B, 1 Kahles, 1 March, 1 NF.

TT is king. No doubt about it. So let's call them 100% as the baseline.

TT 100%. Everything about them is the best.
Premier 98% (only because they are discontinued)
ZCO 97% (Don't sweat the 36mm tube, there are a bunch of great mounting solutions)
S&B PMII 93% (THE origina "gold standard", but the 5-25×56 are known to tunnel between 5x-7x)
NF ATACR F1 85% (Great glass, but has features I HATE)
March FX 85% (High Master glass puts it this high, the regular glass is on par with NF NX8/NXS)
Kahles 84% (great durability and tracking, glass is significantly less impressive)
NF NX8 75% (great cheaper option)

Click to expand...

This is one of the best takes I've read online in at least a couple years.

Kahles is a fine optic, but it doesn't belong in the conversation with TT or ZCO.
Now, there are things personally that I would change to make any of them perfect, but you're really starting to nit-pick at that point.
I sold my TT a couple years ago but a 7-35 is high on my list of wants. Id like to see another revision to their reticle line ups first.
I'm not sure I'll ever sell my 5-42 HighMaster, but only because the deal I got on it was probably something I'll never find again. Again, the reticle options don't impress me and unless they had something significantly better...I don't see any reason to change.
i really wish Nightforce would abandon their mag ring being fixed to the ocular housing. I like to have caps on all my optics and I HATE that I can't adjust without screwing up the placement of my Tenebraex cap.
I've had a pair of Gen3 Razors so far, sold one and traded another for an Element 6-36 and don't regret that trade at all. Just hate that fake purpleish color they cling to. I'll grab another when I can find a Pre-Owned EuroOptic exclusive in Black.
I'd say a MK5HD probably belongs in that 75% to 80% bracket as well.

Kimber7man said:

I don't have a Professional but some differences between the Marksman and LRH:
Marksman - exposed turrets, multiple reticles available, 27.8 ounces
LRH - covered turrets pull the cap up and it locks in, you then dial and push the cap back down. so turrets aren't exposed to possibly spin. LRH reticle is a bolder reticle with mil dots. same weight as the M.
Scopes are identical length etc...

@lancetkenyon can go much further in depth than me.

Click to expand...

I believe there are significant differences in the amount of elevation adjustment that is available, with the LRH having the least and the P having the most.

Some food for thought. Not perfect by any means but a good baseline, take it with a grain of salt, especially due to sample variation.

A little more on tt roots

Never had the chance to spend any time behind a TT but I did get the chance to look through a couple buddies ZCO 5-27 and March 4.5-28 side by side and to be completely honest the ZCO was very underwhelming... ZCO is the best looking scope but on that given day in those given conditions it didn't have an edge optically in any way shape or form over the March but what was very noticeable was the huge difference in FOV and the March destroyed the ZCO. After seeing those two side by side I lost all interest in a ZCO and before that day it was on the top of my list just going by all the reviews I had seen

jmeier1981 said:

Never had the chance to spend any time behind a TT but I did get the chance to look through a couple buddies ZCO 5-27 and March 4.5-28 side by side and to be completely honest the ZCO was very underwhelming... ZCO is the best looking scope but on that given day in those given conditions it didn't have an edge optically in any way shape or form over the March but what was very noticeable was the huge difference in FOV and the March destroyed the ZCO. After seeing those two side by side I lost all interest in a ZCO and before that day it was on the top of my list just going by all the reviews I had seen

Click to expand...

Interesting. I've not used the ZCO 5-27 or the March 4.5x28. Like yourself, I have only read rave reviews on the ZCO scopes and intrigued by your assessment. While different models that are more compact in size,, I do own a ZCO420 and a March 2.5x25x52, both used quite extensively for LRH. My observations are that my March doesn't even come close to the FOV, optical quality, and low light performance of my ZCO420. Don't get me wrong, my March is a nice scope and has performed well for me but the improved performance of the ZCO is quite noticeable. As I'm an avid whitetail hunter, the ZCO420 gives an extra 10-15 minutes of visibility at dusk and dawn….Just my experience….

I should have mentioned the March I was comparing to the ZCO was the high master wide angle model and I looked through them mid day after a PRS match so lighting was good

jmeier1981 said:

Never had the chance to spend any time behind a TT but I did get the chance to look through a couple buddies ZCO 5-27 and March 4.5-28 side by side and to be completely honest the ZCO was very underwhelming... ZCO is the best looking scope but on that given day in those given conditions it didn't have an edge optically in any way shape or form over the March but what was very noticeable was the huge difference in FOV and the March destroyed the ZCO. After seeing those two side by side I lost all interest in a ZCO and before that day it was on the top of my list just going by all the reviews I had seen

Click to expand...

The March FX 4.5-28x52WA High Master glass is night and day better than the old March F 3-24x52 in every aspect except weight. The 4.5x WA vs a 5x ZCO is the difference in FOV at low end.
The ZCO420 is almost unworldly, and hard to explain on how wide the image appears.
To my eyes, the ZCO glass is clearer and has better color and crisper. Maybe not so noticeable looking at a steel silhouette at 1K, but looking at fine details, it is noticeable.
I like the ZCO reticles better too.
If you get them both new, they are priced similarly. Neither one are easy to find used for a reason.

I've used all of the optics listed. I settled on ZCO. I run the 5-27 on my hunting rifles and the 8-40 on my competition rifle.

Where would the Zeiss S5 5-25x56 fall into your mix?

I think he's talking about turret markings not reticle subtensions

Greyfox said:

Interesting. I've not used the ZCO 5-27 or the March 4.5x28. Like yourself, I have only read rave reviews on the ZCO scopes and intrigued by your assessment. While different models that are more compact in size,, I do own a ZCO420 and a March 2.5x25x52, both used quite extensively for LRH. My observations are that my March doesn't even come close to the FOV, optical quality, and low light performance of my ZCO420. Don't get me wrong, my March is a nice scope and has performed well for me but the improved performance of the ZCO is quite noticeable. As I'm an avid whitetail hunter, the ZCO420 gives an extra 10-15 minutes of visibility at dusk and dawn….Just my experience….

Click to expand...

Is your March an FX High Master ? It's a very different ball game between the regular March glass and the FX High Master. FX High Master glass is simply fantastic and crazy great FOV.

PapaSmurff said:

Thanks for the input Tracker, I do own some NF ATACR's and they are tough as nails for sure; very dependable scopes and my favorite brand. I own more ATACR's and NX-8's than any other scopes. I was just wanting to branch out and try something else with a little bit better picture quality/european glass quality image but also with very dependable click values. I talked to Ryan Pierce about this a while back and he said between ZCO and TT it was pretty close to a toss up but he liked a few things better about the TT. Thanks again for your input!

Click to expand...

I like Chose a k525i over an ATACR for a couple of reasons. One was tunneling. ATACR was worse IMO. The other was that the Kahles was just sharper in my old eyes. After I bought it, I was glad I did. Easy eyebox, excellent in low light, and better resolution than anything I've spent much time behind. that being said, all the scopes you are looking at are very good, and everyone's eyes see differently. You just have to spend some time comparing them. High end scopes are very much like high end shotguns. We are all individuals, and one of them will just feel better to you. No one can really help you here. Trust your eyes.

lancetkenyon said:

The March FX 4.5-28x52WA High Master glass is night and day better than the old March F 3-24x52 in every aspect except weight. The 4.5x WA vs a 5x ZCO is the difference in FOV at low end.
The ZCO420 is almost unworldly, and hard to explain on how wide the image appears.
To my eyes, the ZCO glass is clearer and has better color and crisper. Maybe not so noticeable looking at a steel silhouette at 1K, but looking at fine details, it is noticeable.
I like the ZCO reticles better too.
If you get them both new, they are priced similarly. Neither one are easy to find used for a reason.

Click to expand...

If I am reading the specs correctly for each scope, the March 4.5-28x52 has about 3 ft. more field of view at 4.5 power than the ZCO 4-20 does at 4 power. What I would really like to know is how they compare when both are on 20 power since this is more practical when attempting to spot shots at long range.