Tangent Theta vs ZCO vs Schmidt vs Kahles

[GSRetrievers]

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

I would say I strongly dislike that, very distracting to me wondering what their thought process was on that design. I guess I'd just have to get a mil optic if I went tt

 

[lancetkenyon]

T

I would say I strongly dislike that, very distracting to me wondering what their thought process was on that design. I guess I'd just have to get a mil optic if I went tt

Those blowups bottom left and right are just zoomed in of the center to show detail and sizing.

The JTAC is just a horizontal and vertical with floating dot and .2MIL subtensions.

 

[The Oregonian]

Some of the ATACRs tunnel also…I whitetail hunt a good bit and don't want to go to a 5-25, especially when the 5-25 tunnels and the low end is actually about 6.5x.

I love my ZCO, which replaced the 5-25 ATACR…I also have a few 4-16 F2 ATACRs but they don't tunnel and I like the scopes a lot, outside of the rotating ocular.

I also bought the ZCO bc it doesn't need a lever for the mag ring, and as a lefty that lever has contacted the bolt when I cycle a round.

 

[Longtine88]

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.

If they did that I'd sell 15 NF's and buy 3 for sure

 

[buckbrush]

T

Those blowups bottom left and right are just zoomed in of the center to show detail and sizing.

The JTAC is just a horizontal and vertical with floating dot and .2MIL subtensions.
View attachment 545784

I like everything about that reticle except the dots at the whole Mil hashes

 

[Jakeweb09]

I've had ZCOs, ATACR, nx8s and shot one TT A few times. The TT left an impression no doubt, but ZCO has been no slouch in my book. I've never had any issues with the 3 I've owned. And I prefer their reticles over any. The mpct3x is phenomenal. But the fine gen3 TT is very good as well. At first I hated the ocular piece spinning and preferred the nx8 due to it, but you need to realize it's done on purpose for competition shooting, making it easy to just grab the whole thing and spin especially with gloves on. Grew to like it a lot. At this point I use nx8s on most of my dedicated hunting rifles, ZCO 527 on my match rifle, and will be putting a atacr 420 on my new 300 NMI hunting build as the extra weight is kinda wanted on it and the glass is much better then the nx8

 

[Quicksilver338]

Really if you're not running flip caps the rotating ocular is kind of a moot point, and is very easy to just grab and manipulate with gloves hands. I bet there's reasons related to military use with this and the nxs…

 

[Euler]

I have Tangent & ZCOs, had Kahles, have/had ATACRs and others.

Tangent has slightly better resolution, depth of field & field of view, and their turrets are the best out there. In my experiences, the optical IQ advantages of the Tangent are very slight compared to ZCO. Very slight. The "wide view" of the ZCO is noticeably better than Tangent - hard to explain as ZCO does not have better FoV. I prefer the ZCO reticles, and they have more turret options (15 mil/rev locking, 15 mil/rev NLE, 10 mil/rev NLE). Personally, I prefer the overall package of ZCO compared to Tangent, but I do and will continue to use Tangent for certain set-ups. And price has no bearing on that preference (scopes are very cheap compared to barrels, ammo, gas, time, etc). I don't know what the OP's hold-up is with a 36mm main tube, but rings/mounts are cheap.

Kahles is not in the same tier as Tangent/ZCO. New prices of Kahles are a rip off IMO, but you can save quite a bit compared to Tangent/ZCO if you shop for a used Kahles. The new K328i may change that, but only time will tell (also 36mm main tube).

My ATACRs have been a down from Kahles optically as well as in terms of controls & precision of mechanics. BUT, I haven't owned the 7-35, which by all reports is the gem of the ATACR line in terms of optical IQ. I've seen several used 7-35's go for ~$2,500 on a different forum. I wish the 4-20 ATACR didn't tunnel so bad, as that would've been a great crossover candidate, but a 5.5-20 isn't appealing to me.

The 6-36 S&B PMII is interesting, but their reticles are the hold up for me. Sounds like the 6-36 can hang with TT/ZCO, but I can't say from first hand experience.

If you are really unsure, go buy used and try it out. Get experience with it to develop your own opinion, and worse case is you sell used & loose little-to-no money when you move on.

 

[The Oregonian]

I have Tangent & ZCOs, had Kahles, have/had ATACRs and others.

Tangent has slightly better resolution, depth of field & field of view, and their turrets are the best out there. In my experiences, the optical IQ advantages of the Tangent are very slight compared to ZCO. Very slight. The "wide view" of the ZCO is noticeably better than Tangent - hard to explain as ZCO does not have better FoV. I prefer the ZCO reticles, and they have more turret options (15 mil/rev locking, 15 mil/rev NLE, 10 mil/rev NLE). Personally, I prefer the overall package of ZCO compared to Tangent, but I do and will continue to use Tangent for certain set-ups. And price has no bearing on that preference (scopes are very cheap compared to barrels, ammo, gas, time, etc). I don't know what the OP's hold-up is with a 36mm main tube, but rings/mounts are cheap.

Kahles is not in the same tier as Tangent/ZCO. New prices of Kahles are a rip off IMO, but you can save quite a bit compared to Tangent/ZCO if you shop for a used Kahles. The new K328i may change that, but only time will tell (also 36mm main tube).

My ATACRs have been a down from Kahles optically as well as in terms of controls & precision of mechanics. BUT, I haven't owned the 7-35, which by all reports is the gem of the ATACR line in terms of optical IQ. I've seen several used 7-35's go for ~$2,500 on a different forum. I wish the 4-20 ATACR didn't tunnel so bad, as that would've been a great crossover candidate, but a 5.5-20 isn't appealing to me.

The 6-36 S&B PMII is interesting, but their reticles are the hold up for me. Sounds like the 6-36 can hang with TT/ZCO, but I can't say from first hand experience.

If you are really unsure, go buy used and try it out. Get experience with it to develop your own opinion, and worse case is you sell used & loose little-to-no money when you move on.

If the 4-20 F1 ATACR didn't tunnel as much as it does I would own a few of those.

 

[JTComfort]

Can't touch most of the comments here for coverage of all your choices. @lancetkenyon, I'd love to have your perspective - that is a lineup!

I worked over a Schmidt Bender 5-25 for three seasons straight of PRS shooting as well as recreational shooting with my son and a few long range western hunts where the SB did not disappoint. LOTs of elevation dialing, dialing wind, used in all conditions, bumped more than I care to admit, and shipped across the country 3x. Consistent tracking, clarity edge to edge, contrast, 0 eye-fatigue, positive MTC clicks and locking turrets, waterproof, goof proof, customer service and support - 100%.

If possible, look through these optics in the situation where you intend to use them. It's a tall order, but the only way to know what looks best to YOU. TO MY EYES, Schmidt Bender is the best optical glass for target shooting. I favor my Leicas for resolving the colors found in nature - therefore they are my choice for hunting scopes.

 

[blvette75]

We picked up a BULZ EYE PRO 20 years ago to screw on to the back of our Leupold VXIII. It was originally made from the "Norton Bomb Sights" in WWII Bombers. They use Optic Glass that is used in the Space Satellites. It helps seeing the reticle in scopes.

BulzEyePro Optical Boosters for Rifle Scopes and Handgun Scopes

Thanks for this info, for my old eyes this will help,

 

[Barehandlineman11]

Glass wise
Tt
Zco
S&b
Atacr 7-35. Eye box is much better over 5-25.

Strength
Atacr
Tt
Zco
S&b

Ive broken every single one of them except zco i broke 3 of them.
That being said tt overnighted scope there and back. 3 total days gone from it breaking. There in canada.

Zco all 3 no questions which we think arc rings were culprit. But i had each back less then week.

Atacr gone 6 weeks came back fixed tho.

 

[Greyfox]

Between three, S&B, TT, and ZCO I think the glass differences are a push…they are all superb….as are the mechanicals. My personal favorite for LRH has quickly become the ZCO 420 over the past few years. At least to my eyes, the sight picture of the ZCO seems noticeably bigger/pronounced maybe influenced by the larger tube? Other factors with the ZCO was my very strong preference for the ZCO reticle(MPCT-1), the physical dimensions, magnification range, and the design of the controls(including locking turrets).

 

[PapaSmurff]

Well I found some good 36" ring mounts so I went ahead and pulled the trigger on a new TT 7-35x56 Gen 3XR Fine reticle model (36mm main tube diameter). My new 30" barrel custom 338 Edge fixed position long range elk thumper should be finished up and shipping this way next week that it will be mounted to. The new rifle has a BAT Vesper action with 4" mag box, 30" Bartlein Heavy Palma barrel, Grayboe Ridgeback custom "KUIU snow camo" painted stock and Unknown Munitions 4 port side discharge break. I am expecting about 2,950 fps with 300 grain Bergers from this set up for best accuracy. The TT should complete this fine rifle very nicely. I wanna thank everyone for all their good advice in helping me choose one of these top 3 brand scopes! I will post pics and performance data once I get her up and running at the range in a couple more weeks.