Tangent Theta vs ZCO vs Schmidt vs Kahles

[buckbrush]

^^^
I think this is a great assessment. My 100% is a ZCO. Never been able to make myself pony up the $$$ for a TT.

Curious what you don't like about the NF ATACRs? The 5-25s parallax and my eyes refuse to work together.

 

[PapaSmurff]

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)

Thanks for the input Lancet! Sounds like I will be going with TT then! Quick question for you since you've owned several of them: would you go with the Gen 3XR reticle or with the Gen 3XR FINE reticle? This will be another long range elk rifle; average shot for elk with this gun will be 700-800 yards from one of my stands on my ranch. I usually prefer a finer reticle like the NF MOAR-T vs the regular MOAR. Just wanna make sure the Gen 3XR FINE isn't too fine for hunting?

 

[lancetkenyon]

The Gen 3XR has a floating dot center. So does the 3XRF.

The only real difference is the 3XR has a .075M center dot, the 3XRF has a .050M center dot.
All subtensions and main reticle line thicknesses are the same .025M. Not sure why they make the 3XR look heavier in the drawings, but look at the dimensions. They are virtually the same except the center dot.

3XR

3XRF

 

[lancetkenyon]

^^^
I think this is a great assessment. My 100% is a ZCO. Never been able to make myself pony up the $$$ for a TT.

Curious what you don't like about the NF ATACRs? The 5-25s parallax and my eyes refuse to work together.

If you haven't compared a TT to a ZCO, it is hard to fathom how the TT can be better. But they are. Question is, are they worth the extra $1K+ now that prices have gone up? Is that 3% worth the nearly 25% cost increase?

My biggest peeve about the ATACR F1 is the entire ocular housing rotates when you are adjusting magnification. Makes a rear flip up scope cap not an option. The NX8 figured that out, which is why I own a 2.5-20x50 NX8 (and I got it for $1300). It is my cheapest scope, but I can also tell a BIG difference in glass quality. It is on my coyote rifle. It does the job, but I would swap it for a TT315M in a heartbeat, if I could find a used TT315M for twice the price (hard to find one for $2600, but you can if you get lucky).

 

[Quicksilver338]

Lance is right in the money. After I got my March 4.5-28 high master I compared it to a buddies nx8, 7-35 atacr, 2.5-25 March, and a 3-15 TT hunter.

Comparisons were done on a partly cloudy day, mainly looking at a gearbox on top of an orchard wind machine at 900yds. Red gearbox with white lettering. Amazing how much detail you can see with these upper tier optics!

It almost seemed at the same magnification the March FX was better than the TT, given this is the lowest model they make and I have no doubt the higher end TT will be on par with being the king. Now this was a bit picky and sometimes when you bounce back and forth so much between scopes you tell yourself what you want to hear based on actual results

Nx8 is impressive for the money, one of the best budget scopes out there as you get nxs reliability with better glass.

The March 2.5-25 is right on par optically with the nx8 but fit and finish, turret feel, etc is much better.

The 7-35 atacr was surprising and was just like the 3-15 TT and March 4.5-28. We felt they were all optically on par and was tough to decided specifically which one you'd rather have. It comes down to reticle choice largely at that point. Like mentioned the rotation of the ocular when adjusting magnification on the atacr is just stupid for an optic of that class. Fit and finish and turrets were nicer on the March and TT, while I assume the atacr will win a durability contest you'll have to really try to make any of them fail.

If I wanted the next level, and price of wasn't a concern I'd definitely be going with the TT 5-25 or their newer 7-35. I could get a ZCO or something, but at the end of the day I'd still be wondering about the TT so why not just buy the king and be done with it

 

[AZn8v]

My old eyes like the 20 power on the ZCO.

 

[lancetkenyon]

My old eyes like the 20 power on the ZCO.

Vs the 25X of the TT525P 5-25x56 and the S&B PMII 5-25x56?

 

[GSRetrievers]

The Gen 3XR has a floating dot center. So does the 3XRF.

The only real difference is the 3XR has a .075M center dot, the 3XRF has a .050M center dot.
All subtensions and main reticle line thicknesses are the same .025M. Not sure why they make the 3XR look heavier in the drawings, but look at the dimensions. They are virtually the same except the center dot.

3XR
View attachment 545656

3XRF
View attachment 545657

Lance, do they have a floating dot, non tree moa reticle? I didn't see one in my quick search. I'd try a tt but wasn't excited by any of the reticles.

 

[AZn8v]

My old eyes like the 20 power on vs the 15-18's

Vs the 25X of the TT525P 5-25x56 and the S&B PMII 5-25x56?

Should have said vs the 15-18's……

 

[lancetkenyon]

Should have said vs the 15-18's……

If TT would make a lighterweight TT420M, I would go into debt replacing every scope I own.
Or, if ZCO would make a lighter ZCO 420 that weighed in about 28oz.

 

[AZn8v]

If TT would make a lighterweight TT420M, I would go into debt replacing every scope I own.
Or, if ZCO would make a lighter ZCO 420 that weighed in about 28oz.

Agree, the ZCO could double as a boat anchor, but man is it nice.

 

[tonyf3]

My eyes got bad quickly.. NX8 and NXS used to be bright to my eyes and over time it's been hard to see targets in a few areas i hunt.
For me, TT is like a flashlight in the dark to me.

Agree about the 20x. I liked the 420 ZCO but not the weight. IF ZCO or TT can sort out an 18 or 20x at right weight i'll have alot of glass for sale.

 

[wasskeet]

Lance, do they have a floating dot, non tree moa reticle? I didn't see one in my quick search. I'd try a tt but wasn't excited by any of the reticles.

Not Lance, but I expect you would like the JTAC reticle:

JTAC Reticle

<ul> <li style="text-align: left;">Fine center dot for more precise aiming point—especially on smaller targets</li> <li style="text-align: left;">Easy to identify sub-tensions eliminate the need to count lines</li> <li style="text-align: left;">Very open above horizontal stadia to increase trace...

armament.com

 

[lancetkenyon]

Lance, do they have a floating dot, non tree moa reticle? I didn't see one in my quick search. I'd try a tt but wasn't excited by any of the reticles.

TT does not have an XR that is, but they have the JTAC. ZCO has the MPCT1 reticle, which I LOVE.