Mile High Shooting Accessories is advertising them, and as I don’t believe I’ve even heard of the company before, I’m curious if anyone else knows about them.

I’ve heard on them, not seen one in person. Highly thought of over at Sniper’s Hide. Pricey...

Founders came out of Nightforce and Kahles.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...ro-compromise-optic/

Yeah lots of talk about them on SniperHide - supposed to be high quality and big $$$.

They are/were backed heavily by the owner of SnipersHide. I’m sure they threw that guy a bunch of free product/swag. For all their marketing, not much has been done or seen. They have certainly not made any inroads w PRS, NRL, or other significant organization.

They aren’t bringing anything to the market that isn’t already here.

My advice.... stick with the known names. You won’t go wrong.

Andrew

Yeah, prices are high and they don't seem to have many out there.

Like most things, I don't stray from things with a pretty long standing track record of quality, especially for that kind of coin.

I was interested in them and I spent a good bit of time on their website. But like most here I was leaning more toward an established company with a solid track record. Nightforce was at the top of my list. Then, NikonUser introduced me to March optics and I’ve been giving them a hard look lately. They have some pretty amazing options too.

I don’t have any intention of buying one because I have no need for one even if they weren’t so expensive. I am curious whether anyone has any actual knowledge about or experience with them because I’m trying to improve my understanding of higher tier riflescopes, and they’re claiming to be in that category for a variety of reasons.

Advice is always good too, though.

I'm having some trepidation about diving into this thread simply because it can quickly get into wide ranging discussion about impressions and favorite stuff, and so on.

Suffice it to say that there is something I consider a platinum tier of optics, stuff better than Nightforce and S&B and so on. Right now, that would be March and Tangent Theta. They are both very low production rate outfits, offering few models and making exceptional quality products.

I first heard of ZCO at SHOT2019 and they were there again this year. I do not know of anyone using their product. I believe they are in Austria with a presence in Idaho. Yes, the proximity to Nightforce is glaring.

If one outfit can produce superlative optics on a small scale, there is not reason why this can't be duplicated elsewhere. March started in the 2000's. I believe TT started around 2012-2013, nothing says this can't be done elsewhere. Time will tell is ZCO will be viable and actually belong in the platinum tier but there's no reason they can't make a good product.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
I'm having some trepidation about diving into this thread simply because it can quickly get into wide ranging discussion about impressions and favorite stuff, and so on.

I certainly don’t mind a discussion about favorite stuff because that’s essentially why I started this thread, albeit about a single manufacturer.

I definitely appreciate the technical discussions about what makes one scopesight better than another. For example, ZCO says they use hardened steel parts for some critical innards and the best glass available. Other companies make similar claims about their glass, but not so much about the durability and accuracy of their adjustments. And just to cite one example of a highly-regarded company, I was a little surprised to learn that Nightforce doesn’t use the same type of glass in all of their sights. Further, not all NF scopes had stellar reputations at one time in a particular top tier military special operations force that was able to test them in depth.

What I find a little frustrating even though I’m not currently in the market for a “platinum” level scopesight is that I don’t know where to go for reliable, detailed information about what makes them different. For example, even when an individual or company specifies that this or that glass is used, that’s usually as far as the claim goes, and I, the potential consumer, cannot easily know what its characteristics or advantages are. On the other hand, if someone points out that March scopes have thicker than average tubes, that’s something I can understand even if someone else might opine that that difference is not important.

So, thanks for anything you might care to contribute.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
I'm having some trepidation about diving into this thread simply because it can quickly get into wide ranging discussion about impressions and favorite stuff, and so on.

I certainly don’t mind a discussion about favorite stuff because that’s essentially why I started this thread, albeit about a single manufacturer.

I definitely appreciate the technical discussions about what makes one scopesight better than another. For example, ZCO says they use hardened steel parts for some critical innards and the best glass available. Other companies make similar claims about their glass, but not so much about the durability and accuracy of their adjustments. And just to cite one example of a highly-regarded company, I was a little surprised to learn that Nightforce doesn’t use the same type of glass in all of their sights. Further, not all NF scopes had stellar reputations at one time in a particular top tier military special operations force that was able to test them in depth.

What I find a little frustrating even though I’m not currently in the market for a “platinum” level scopesight is that I don’t know where to go for reliable, detailed information about what makes them different. For example, even when an individual or company specifies that this or that glass is used, that’s usually as far as the claim goes, and I, the potential consumer, cannot easily know what its characteristics or advantages are. On the other hand, if someone points out that March scopes have thicker than average tubes, that’s something I can understand even if someone else might opine that that difference is not important.

So, thanks for anything you might care to contribute.

As you have probably surmised already, the provenance of the glass used in any optics remains a mystery. You hear claims the some people use Schott glass, but what is not told is that Schott doesn't produce all their glass, the ultimate provenance can be from other, unexpected places. People hold very strong ideas about glass, without actual knowledge or understanding to backup these ideas and beliefs.

Let me be a little bit of a March fanboy here.
Last week, I received my newest March scope, a March-X 10-60X56HM. This is the one with the so-called High Master lens system. It's a fancy name for the combination of Super-ED objective lens doublet and high refractive index lenses for the remainder of the scope. I consider this scope to be the very best in high magnification SFP scopes. On Saturday, I went to my local range, a private club to which I belong with a 200 yard maximum range. I go to this club to do load development and scope adjustments or flat out changes.

The first thing I did was place my thermometer target at 100 yards and then I shot 2 rounds on it with the March-X 5-50X56. I was aiming at the bottom of the 40 inch target and put one round with the current 1000 yard setting, which impacted at 39 inches high, and another one with 10 MOA off the elevation, which impacted at 28.5 inches. Then I removed the 5-50X56 and proceeded to install the 10-60X56HM. My receiver has 20MOA built into it and I used an extra Picatinny rail which had a further 20MOA built-in. For rings, I used Burris XTR Signature rings with the front ring having a -10MOA (at 4.75 inches spread) inserts in it. My goal was to get to 30MOA on the scope which would make my 1000 yard zero just 10MOA above the sweet sport of the lens and my 600 yard zero be 10MOA below the sweet spot. I wanted to have the best possible IQ going through the scope at both my distances.

After I got everything installed, my first shot appeared on the thermometer target at 23 inches, just a couple of inches below the -10MOA poke using the prior scope. It was also smack on the vertical line. I should mention that I had verified the settings on the new scope the night before using the mirror and flashlight trick. I knew everything was set at the middle mechanically.

I tightened everything and took a few more pokes and then added 10MOA of elevation. The next poke showed up at 33 inches and I refined the zero to be exactly the same as the first shot with the prior scope. I never had to fiddle much with the windage. Well, I did push it to the right a couple MOAs to distinguish subsequent shots after thightening the screws, then I erased that windage and brought it back to 0. The next morning, I went to the 1000 yard competition.

I lined up the rifle and settled in behind it and took my very first shot at 1000 yards. The e-target showed a hit in the 7 ring at 3 o'clock, exactly waterline. I was elated. I adjusted for wind and went on my merry way. I even set a new personal best during that first match when I shot 8 consecutive Xs at 1000 yards. I got a little excited and baubled some shots after that, but the scope was working well.

Now, I invited anyone who wanted to look through my scope to get down behind the rifle while it was aimed at my target. Since we use e-targets, we leave our rifles on the line with EICs inserted during the entire match. I had a half dozen people look through it and saw some very sad faces. One guy wanted to kick his Nightforce BR. One guy has a Kahles K1050X56 and he also has a March HM like mine. He doesn't even want to use the Kahles anymore. The Kahles is an excellent scope, but for what we do, it doesn't compare to the March HM.

Some of the guys simply stated they just don't want to spend that kind of money on a scope but they now understand the difference between a tier one scope like a Nightforce and a platinum level scope.

I've talked about the engineering of the innards of March scopes in my stickied thread, so I won't repeat that here, but the goal is light weight, durability and top IQ in a scope. If one company can do it, another one can do it also; it all comes down to execution and ultimately, price.

I should point out that in terms of glass, the HM is essentially at the limit of what can be accomplished with the current dimensions of the physical scopes. As I've explained earlier, the amount of light that comes into the optics and passes through it is a function of the size of the lenses and the HM glass in the March-X is pretty much at the limit of resolution that can be achieved with a 56mm objective.

I've looked through/handled them. Glass is on par with Minox 5-25 scope, better then NF. The eye box is great, very forgiving, easy to get behind. Smidge of CA. Tangents and Minox have zero CA. Turrets felt good, up there with Tangent's turrets, not a fan of the locking turrets personally. Reticles are smart. Don't understand their latest reticle, maybe going after military contracts? I'm selling my two scopes at the end of this season, I'll consider the ZCO when that time comes.

sigfreund, take a trip to MileHigh. Good people! They'll let you go outside with any scope. If you don't bring a rear bag, they'll hand you one and send you to a place outside where you can safely rest scopes on, the frame for their business sign. You'll be almost standing upright, comfortable spot to look through scopes. Bring the scopes you have to compare. Try to read license plates. Look at stuff in the shadows of trees, see how defined/depth of the image. Look directly into the sun/perpendicular to the sun.... Look for CA on edges of bright to shadows. They know the distances of signs, buildings around them. Could park your vehicle 100yds away, put targets you're familiar with on it. Crank the turrets up and down. Move your head around, see how tight of a eye box.... Probably learn more then reading a techniclal spec sheet!

Some people like snails, some people like oysters. Some people will always try and convince you that one is better than the other. The only way to know for sure is to try them both. The more times you get to try them the more likely it is that you will be able to decide which you prefer. It seems there are always going to be vocal supporters and sometimes detractors of any supposedly premium product.

Sigfreund, I often think your posts are nothing more than trolls. Why would you even bother to ask if you where not even considering getting one? You often post questions that are easily researched are you hoping for some sort of conflict? I do not care why you post, but if you did post your reasoning behind why you ask what you ask it could certainly add to the entertainment factor of your threads.

quote:

Originally posted by Stlhead:
Why would you even bother to ask ...? ... I do not care why you post ....

And yet here you are complaining about my posts.

But assuming your question is sincere (unlike what you evidently believe mine to be), this once I’ll refer back to a couple of things that you evidently missed:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’m trying to improve my understanding of higher tier riflescopes ….

And then this:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I don’t know where to go for reliable, detailed information about what makes them different.

We see countless threads and posts asking questions of the membership because many of us have confidence in the answers we expect to receive here. In particular I know that a few members in particular are very knowledgeable and willing to discuss the questions I’ve posed here. Yes, some things discussed in this thread thus far have been discussed before, but fortunately a few people don’t mind discussing them again—as I have done countless times about subjects I’m familiar with. Furthermore, they provide answers that in a clear, focused, concise manner that is generally untrue of the Internet in general, not to mention being credible.

This is what is known as a discussion forum and that’s why I am a regular participant: I enjoy and benefit from the discussions. And that’s why I sometimes ask provocative questions. Some people are satisfied with … less interesting subjects, but I like drawing out opinions about things that interest me and the membership here usually makes that very productive.

Other questions, like this one, are more for the purpose of obtaining pure technical information. If I could get everything I want to know by researching other sources, I would do that, but I can’t. The “why” of my questions is often because I’m an inquisitive person with very broad interests. As a consequence I know a lot about a lot of different things, and as a result of this thread I now know a few more things, some of which may be of value to me in the future, as have countless other bits of information have been useful to me in the past. I also hope to learn more things from other members who have something useful to contribute.

Furthermore, I have researched these questions elsewhere, but I like the confidence I get from consulting multiple sources.

I do, however, understand that some of us, I at least, post things you don’t like. The same is true of my opinions about many of the things I see here. I’ll therefore offer my solution to such problems, as it evidently hasn’t occurred to you: If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. It’s not necessary to even open a thread to see who the author is, and there is an “ignore” feature here that permits us to avoid being disconcerted by a particular member’s posts within a thread. Try it, you may like it.

Had been waiting for offgrid to chime in. Looks like he likes ZCO quite a bit.

There's some good discussion on a few high-end tactical scopes on YouTube, incl. the ZCO (IF you can stand the narrator's presentation style, that is. He absolutely knows what he's talking about, but isn't the most-gifted presenter. Rather, he very "thoughtfully" presents his findings).

Search for "DLO Reviews: High End Tactical, Part 6". You'll find 3 videos: [/LIST]

• "Best of the Best": goes over the specifics and characteristics of 6 high-end tactical scopes (Tangent Theta, SB, Minox, Kahles, ZCO, Leupold Mk5)
  
• Wrap-up: more musings on March, ZCO, Tangent Theta, SB, Vortex, Kahles, Leupold, Minox and Steiner
  
• Reticle videos: through the scope images/videos
  

ya know sigfreund you could come shoot the Raton match! If fritz can shoot it....
Raton practice line, 5 different scopes in the immediate picture. Most everyone will gladly let others look through their scopes, spin the turrets, maybe shoot a few rounds. Will give honest feedback likes/dislikes. If repaired, what broke, experience getting scope repaired....

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:
ya know sigfreund you could come shoot the Raton match!

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, ….
I know, and I kept procrastinating until a family matter last summer made it now impossible to leave home long enough to do something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by E26R-40-BSE:
Had been waiting for offgrid to chime in. Looks like he likes ZCO quite a bit.

There's some good discussion on a few high-end tactical scopes on YouTube, incl. the ZCO (IF you can stand the narrator's presentation style, that is. He absolutely knows what he's talking about, but isn't the most-gifted presenter. Rather, he very "thoughtfully" presents his findings).

Search for "DLO Reviews: High End Tactical, Part 6". You'll find 3 videos:

• "Best of the Best": goes over the specifics and characteristics of 6 high-end tactical scopes (Tangent Theta, SB, Minox, Kahles, ZCO, Leupold Mk5)
  
• Wrap-up: more musings on March, ZCO, Tangent Theta, SB, Vortex, Kahles, Leupold, Minox and Steiner
  
• Reticle videos: through the scope images/videos
  

That sounds like my friend ILya Koshkin, aka The Dark Lord of Optics. I've been communicating with him for a few years and he always comes and visit with me at SHOT and he spends time in the March booth looking over the latest. He has been testing the newest scopes from March, the 4.5-28X52 and the 5-42X56. ILya is very knowledgeable.

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:
ya know sigfreund you could come shoot the Raton match! If fritz can shoot it....

Tough crowd.
You know, Mommy and Daddy now allow me to drive all the way to Raton by myself.

Furthermore, I can now put the pointy end of the bullet the right way into the clips at least 2 out of 3 times.

So there.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
And just to cite one example of a highly-regarded company, I was a little surprised to learn that Nightforce doesn’t use the same type of glass in all of their sights.

Seriously? There have been countless discussions of NF's introduction of ED glass in its ATACR line, which was some 5 years ago. I am just one of the many people who have stated that ATACR's glass is clearer, brighter, sharper, and less blue than NF's prior glass -- especially in the NXS line. And I recall that you have weighed in on a few of such threads.

Do you honestly think NF's value-line $1k SHV scopes have the same internals as their $3k+ ATACR models? I don't know what brand of scopes you use, but do you honestly think that their $3k+ long distance scopes have the same glass as their value-line LPV optics?

Comments like that are why users such as Stlhead question whether or not some of your posts are trolls.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Seriously?

Yes, seriously.
Why do you think I post questions like the one I started in this thread?
Without inquiring, how do you imagine that people learn the things they do?

A little discussion about that: One of the things that has become most clear by reading posts on this forum is how many people find it very difficult to understand that not everyone else has experienced and learned the same things in life that they have. The fact that our experiences and therefore what we know and understand are almost unique for every individual person should be obvious, and most of us would probably acknowledge the fact if we were asked about it. That abstract knowledge, however, doesn’t translate into what many, perhaps most of us expect of others.

We see that ignorance of other people’s ignorance expressed here all the time about countless subjects:

“Ha! The millennial next door didn’t know how to change a tire.” Okay, has anyone ever taught him how to do that? I haven’t changed a tire myself in over 30 years. If he wasn’t taught, how would he know?

“You don’t know that about lawn mowers?” No, I’ve never owned a lawn mower in my life and haven’t mown a lawn in nearly 60 years. That may seem very odd to most men who have lived all their lives where mowing lawns was imperative and vital to their self-esteem, but I’m not the only person of whom that’s true. Failing to recognize that is a demonstration of how many of us assume that everyone else must have lived the same sort of life as we have.

“You don’t know there are differences in Nightforce scopes?” I do now because I’ve raised the question here and with someone who was familiar with them after extensive testing. Before that my exposure to the name (not the products themselves) was second hand, and they were (and still are as far as I can determine) the Glocks of the scopesight world. They are very popular with long range shooters of a certain level of skill and experience and therefore they get mentioned and pictured in use very commonly. And like Glocks, it’s obvious that hardly anyone likes to be heard saying anything bad about them.

In recent times I have been thinking about my choices of rifle scopes and therefore have started researching the question. Prior to that I didn’t know anything about the prices of Nightforce scopes, and had no reason to know. I had never read a comment to the effect of, “The A line is good, but the B line is crap, stay away from it.” Should I be asking if there is a bargain line of March scopes with cheaper glass and thinner main tubes?

What’s more, I’m still only beginning to understand how different types of glass in a scope have such an effect on their price. I realize that the good stuff is more expensive, but is that difference enough to boost the cost of a sight’s manufacture from $1000 to $3000? Seriously? I might assume there are other differences, but even the dullest of us should know what we risk by assuming. If, however, the glass alone can triple the cost of manufacturing a scopesight, I would be very interested in learning that fact, and that’s why I pose questions about such things here.

As I mentioned elsewhere I know a lot about a lot of things because I am inquisitive, and especially because I’m not afraid to admit my ignorance. But I also know that not everyone knows the things I do. I am a professional firearms instructor and understanding that not everyone knows what I know is a vital component of performing my job properly and professionally. I have taught and interacted with people who ranged from novices who had literally never fired a gun in their lives to military designated marksmen veterans. My approach to them varies greatly of course, but every one knew things I didn’t, just as I knew things that every one of them didn’t.

Incredulous astonishment at the ignorance of others can be very soul-satisfying and give us an uplifting “What a smart boy am I!” self-affirmation, but we should keep in mind that that’s all it is in a discussion like this.

For those of you who are willing to answer questions and educate the ignorant: Thank you.
(The videos E26R-40-BSE mentioned were particularly informative.)