The more recent F1 and Enhanced Nightforce ATACR optics are claimed to have higher quality glass. Owning both the older and newer versions, at least to my eyes, the newer glass does appear to be better then the older ATACR's.
Interesting test on top tier scopes.
- Thread starter Casscade
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Buffalobwana
Well-Known Member
I had an older Nightforce NXS 3-18x 56(? I think the objective was 56)
I bought a Leupold VX-6 3-18x56. Basically, apples to apples comparison.
The difference between them was unbelievable. Leupold was 2/3 the weight of Nightforce and noticeably clearer glass.
I sold that Nightforce the next day and bought another Leupold VX-6.
Can't speak to the newer Nightforce, or even the VX-6 HD. But, I'm a Leupold supporter.
I bought a Leupold VX-6 3-18x56. Basically, apples to apples comparison.
The difference between them was unbelievable. Leupold was 2/3 the weight of Nightforce and noticeably clearer glass.
I sold that Nightforce the next day and bought another Leupold VX-6.
Can't speak to the newer Nightforce, or even the VX-6 HD. But, I'm a Leupold supporter.
I don't know that NF has ever made a 3-18 magnification scope. Maybe you have your brands confused?
X2....( but could be just prejudice because they are made in Canada?....lol)
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
They must have gotten a dud TT525P. TT glass, from every single one I have shot behind, is unmatched. Even by ZCO.
For me, I LOVE glass quality. But, I NEED tracking and RTZ to be perfect. Which they did not test at all.
I have shot behind just about every piece of alpha glass there is. For my PERSONAL rifles, I balance quality with weight. Price point is not a factor in my choices. If I have to save another 6 months to a year to afford what I want, so be it.
For me, my top choice for a lightweight hunting rifle is exactly one. Tangent Theta TT315M. I also have a Premier Heritage Light Tactical 3-15x50 that is on par with the TT315M except no illumination. The original TT315M.
If I can stomach a bit more weight, that opens up a few other options. TT315P, ZCO 420, S&B PMII 5-20US, S&B PMII 3-20US, Kahles K318i.
For a heavy, LR rifle, my only choices would be TT525P and ZCO 527. Maybe a S&B PMII 5-25x56. But, my Premier Heritage 5-25x56 will match pretty much anything out there for glass and tracking. It is basically the original TT525P.
I shoot enough that glass matters to me. If I was a "100 rounds a year" guy, it probably would be a completely different story. But dang, I am about a "100 rounds a week" guy on average. All that work for 1-4 shots a year on game makes me an addict I think.
For me, I LOVE glass quality. But, I NEED tracking and RTZ to be perfect. Which they did not test at all.
I have shot behind just about every piece of alpha glass there is. For my PERSONAL rifles, I balance quality with weight. Price point is not a factor in my choices. If I have to save another 6 months to a year to afford what I want, so be it.
For me, my top choice for a lightweight hunting rifle is exactly one. Tangent Theta TT315M. I also have a Premier Heritage Light Tactical 3-15x50 that is on par with the TT315M except no illumination. The original TT315M.
If I can stomach a bit more weight, that opens up a few other options. TT315P, ZCO 420, S&B PMII 5-20US, S&B PMII 3-20US, Kahles K318i.
For a heavy, LR rifle, my only choices would be TT525P and ZCO 527. Maybe a S&B PMII 5-25x56. But, my Premier Heritage 5-25x56 will match pretty much anything out there for glass and tracking. It is basically the original TT525P.
I shoot enough that glass matters to me. If I was a "100 rounds a year" guy, it probably would be a completely different story. But dang, I am about a "100 rounds a week" guy on average. All that work for 1-4 shots a year on game makes me an addict I think.
Longrangers
Well-Known Member
Surprised sightron wasn't included.
PNWdude67
Well-Known Member
The ZCO 527 and 420 are fantastic optics good to see they held up in this test. the new 840 is hitting the field now, but is not in my future nor is it really a "hunting" class scope.
Weight difference between the 527 and 420 is negligible. The compact size of the 420 sets it apart while retaining the optical quality and features of a bigger device. I have 4 420 and 2 527 on heavy match and hunter/match rifles. They hold up to the abuse and perform well. What sets the ZCO apart for me while operating in the field is the ability to see or judge depth of field. On a few occasions in matches we would have targets near to far staggered at 20-40-60 yard increments and I find it easy to judge that through the optic which helps with accurate and efficient target acquisition. This also helps my eye pick up the bullet flight to target on longer shots which really helps confirm impacts down range. I have shot matches with Leupold, S•B and Vortex, they have a "flatter" field of view IMO and are not preferable to the image that the ZCO transmits for me. I have looked through and sent a few rounds behind a tangent theta, the optic has a slight fishbowl sensation to me. Clarity is great. Would be interesting to have a truly blinded test where the observer did not know which optic he was evaluating. Identical reticle and power settings and a cover over the optic of some sort. that would be interesting.
Weight difference between the 527 and 420 is negligible. The compact size of the 420 sets it apart while retaining the optical quality and features of a bigger device. I have 4 420 and 2 527 on heavy match and hunter/match rifles. They hold up to the abuse and perform well. What sets the ZCO apart for me while operating in the field is the ability to see or judge depth of field. On a few occasions in matches we would have targets near to far staggered at 20-40-60 yard increments and I find it easy to judge that through the optic which helps with accurate and efficient target acquisition. This also helps my eye pick up the bullet flight to target on longer shots which really helps confirm impacts down range. I have shot matches with Leupold, S•B and Vortex, they have a "flatter" field of view IMO and are not preferable to the image that the ZCO transmits for me. I have looked through and sent a few rounds behind a tangent theta, the optic has a slight fishbowl sensation to me. Clarity is great. Would be interesting to have a truly blinded test where the observer did not know which optic he was evaluating. Identical reticle and power settings and a cover over the optic of some sort. that would be interesting.
If Aaron Hipp got a "dud" Tangent Theta, that is also very telling. I've known him for years, and I know what his standards are, so keep in mind this is a comparison among top tier scopes according to HIS eyes when properly adjusted. Maybe there is something in the coating spectrum that didn't work for his eyes, who knows. I've personally experienced this myself with a US Optics scope from back in the day.
Perhaps the TT used in the test wasn't a dud. I read another comparison/review that stated the TT glass was ranked highest when tested at maximum magnification, but was more comparable to the other Alpha grade scopes when all were set at lower magnification.
The test referred to in this thread was conducted with all scopes set at 20X… This possibly being the reason for the TT's lower test ranking.
How do you think the Zeiss Victory V8 line and Swaro Z6 and Z8 lines compare to the TT315 and ZCO?
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
Swaro has excellent glass. But I would gonwith the X5 line personally of I was a SFP shooter. The Z6 line is a great lightweight option however. I have shot behind dozens of Swaro scopes.
Zeiss is very good. Not quite Swaro good, but a great option for the price. I have only shot behind 6 or 7 of the Zeiss V6 scopes however.
You know, and I know this isn't practical, so I don't blame the investigator at all, but if you wanted to be rigorous about testing, you would grab 20 or so of each scope, cover them all with black cloth, so the tester doesn't know the brand name, and then test. Then show variability within each scope, and then compare with other scopes.
At the very least, though, the tester should not know which scope he is looking through.
You simply can't overcome operator bias, no matter how honest you are. That's why stuff is blinded in studies.
At the very least, though, the tester should not know which scope he is looking through.
You simply can't overcome operator bias, no matter how honest you are. That's why stuff is blinded in studies.
Agree!
