Interesting test on top tier scopes.

[Greyfox]

Strange. I don't see March in the list

Base on the authors intent to focus on popular PRS scopes, it's not surprising that a March wasn't included in the test. In the PRS matches I competed in, I don't recall having seen one in use.

 

[SteveLM]

As the OP on Hide said, I'm not at all surprised by how well ZCO scored. The 527 is amazing. I admit to being kind of surprised at how well the new Vortex Razor HD Gen III did and I'm puzzled about Tangent Theta's score. As mentioned in one of the posts above, there's more to this than just visual clarity, but I've always thought that TT was strong in this department (and, at least at one time, the DLO seemed to agree)!

 

[cornshank]

Strange. I don't see March in the list

Tasco either

 

[WiscGunner]

Great testing on actual shock resistance, tracking, POI, retention

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

www.rokslide.com

 

[Greyfox]

As the OP on Hide said, I'm not at all surprised by how well ZCO scored. The 527 is amazing. I admit to being kind of surprised at how well the new Vortex Razor HD Gen III did and I'm puzzled about Tangent Theta's score. As mentioned in one of the posts above, there's more to this than just visual clarity, but I've always thought that TT was strong in this department (and, at least at one time, the DLO seemed to agree)!

I think that the numerical span of the "clarity" ranking for most of these scopes would be difficult to rank for all but the most discerning eye if the scopes were subjected to a blind test in a typical shooting conditions. IMO, the analytical test such as the one shown by the OP "splits the hairs", and, can neutralize bias, relevance, and, the "party line"….All which can be experienced(if you look close enough) with many of the very numerous and subjective reviews out there. I think if your are spending the big $$$ for one of these scopes, acquiring more objective information like the test shown, or better yet, one's "own" testing, is important.
Having acquired a ZCO420 for my LRH rifle some months back, and I was fortunate to actually compare it to most all the usual 56mm suspects(a few listed in the above test). It is a VERY impressive scope, and at least for me, and what I would consider to be as close as I can get to the perfect scope for a mid-weight(10-12#), LR hunting rifle used to +1200 yard hunting/shooting. My plan, over time, will be to trade up my current scopes, and replace them with the ZCO for my LR rifles….and perhaps even my PRS rifles. I have rarely, if ever used more then 20x magnification for LRH or PRS and the ZCO's 50mm objective gives most all my 56mm's a run for the money in terms of clarity/optical quality.
I did take a look at the TT315. While a VERY nice scope with excellent glass, to me, the optical clarity compared to the ZCO was a push, but the ZCO's higher power, larger sight picture, superb reticle, and other relevant features that better suited my use dominated the appeal for the ZCO.

"Nothing is so well understood as that which you find out for yourself"
-R. Sloma

 

[SteveLM]

While a VERY nice scope with excellent glass, to me, the optical clarity compared to the ZCO was a push, but the ZCO's higher power, larger sight picture, superb reticle, and other relevant features that better suited my use dominated the appeal for the ZCO.

Agreed. I've never regreted spending the $$$ for my 527...

 

[Rich Coyle]

Greyfox,

Is the ZCO 1st or 2nd focal plane?

 

[Greyfox]

Greyfox,

Is the ZCO 1st or 2nd focal plane?

It's a 1st focal plane scope.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Thank you.

 

[Huntnpack]

Having acquired a ZCO420 for my LRH rifle some months back, and I was fortunate to actually compare it to most all the usual 56mm suspects(a few listed in the above test). It is a VERY impressive scope, and at least for me, and what I would consider to be as close as I can get to the perfect scope for a mid-weight(10-12#), LR hunting rifle used to +1200 yard hunting/shooting.

Interesting testing results. I to recently purchased a ZCO for a current custom build prior to reviewing the testing. Pleased to see the ZCO performed well. Like Greyfox, I feel the 420 is nearly the perfect scope for my intended use.

 

[jh2785]

Is anyone surprised at the low ranking of the Zeiss? Zeiss can put out some really great glass and I'm surprised to see it at the bottom of these tests.

 

[AlexV4RR]

Is anyone surprised at the low ranking of the Zeiss? Zeiss can put out some really great glass and I'm surprised to see it at the bottom of these tests.

Yes, I was as well, I would also like to see the lieca in there. I personally have the v6 in 3-18 and I love it.

 

[jh2785]

Yes, I was as well, I would also like to see the lieca in there. I personally have the v6 in 3-18 and I love it.

I don't hear much on the Leica PRS line of scopes. But the Magnus line seemed popular when it was in production.

The NF optics - then tend to get really great reviews, but the glass has never been great to my 40+ year old eyes. I haven't looked through that particular ATACR, but it nonetheless scored very high and I'm a little surprised by that too.

 

[Casscade]

Zeiss after the diavari vmv line has been pretty inconstant from my experience. I think the vmv diavari's, especially the early ones were/are, to this day the best glass I've ever used past or present, and I've had most scopes on that test list and a lot more.

Chances are the Zeiss was a bad sample and that's the issue for me with the post diavari scopes, inconstancies. Some of the best glass I've used recently is the Leica magnus line and 36mm tube v8's, both incredible but neither have better glass that my early 6-24 diavari's.