There is a nice video out there that claims it is impossible. I was blissfully unaware of it, but a friend of mine sent me the link, presumable because the video references me, however briefly.

I went and watched it. It really like the production quality and he really gets a lot of the details correctly (though not all). There is, however, one absolutely glaring error and a few minor ones. Now, that alone would not make me want to make what is essentially going to be a rebuttal video.  I decided to sit down and write down my thoughts before I make the video.  Than I decided to share these thoughts with you in a written form before I get to the video itself.

I do not like doing these critique jobs.  However, he is doing a pretty shameless straw man argument, so I figured it is worth my time.  I do not think his intent is malicious, but contrarian arguments get a lot of clicks.  It is very fashionable these days to find a product that shows up in serches a lto and crap all over it to make yourself stand out.  Still, I am going treat this as an error, rather than an attempt to obfuscate. The single biggest error and the one on which his whole argument hinges on, is that of expectations. He never states it out right, so noone really catches onto what is essentially a slight of hand.

There is a lot of footage of him walking up and down rocky hills with lots of nice gear and interspersed with diagrams only marginally related to the subject discussed.  It all looks authoritative and sounds really awesome. If you follow the logic of his argument it all really makes a lot of sense. If you accept his underlying assumption that is. The assumption that is never quite stated outrightm soit does not get challenged.

If you assume that a 1-10x LPVO is supposed to supersede BOTH lower mag ratio LPVOs AND Larger objective 2-10×40 MPVOs scopes, it all makes total sense.  However, that is not what they are for. They were never intended to peplace larger objective designs specifically for the reasons stated in the video: exit pupil gets small on high magnification when you have a small objective.

1-10x scopes are intended to extend the capability of lower erector ratio LPVOs in a pinch, not to supplant larger scopes.

A 1- 10x scope is indeed harder to build than a 1-4x, 1-6x or a 1- 8x. That's why good ones are expensive.  Somewhere in there he insinuated that he'd like a SFP 1-10x scope and they do exist, but there is a good reason to make these with FFP reticles when you consider the general purpose application.  Honestly, a part of his argument almost seems to be "they do not make these in the configuraiton that I'd like, which means it is not possible to make a good one".  That's a flawed argument at best.

Even with 1-8x designs, the trend is clearly toward FFP scopes and, again, for a good reason.  One of the many reasons to go with a FFP LPVO is that the reticle works on all magnifications.  MOst importantly, the reticle is designed to do different things on different magnifications.  That is intentional.  While a significant number of people do only use them on the lowest and highest magnifications, the biggest reason to have an LPVO on your AR is to be prepared for situations you did not expect.  That's where the flexibility comes in.  Another benefit of FFP designs is that in a modern LPVO you WANT a sophisticated free reticle on 5x and above to use for trajectory and wind compensation.  However, on Ix you want it to look like a simple reticle: bright dot, #4, etc. You do not want to see the entire tree.  That is not possible with a SFP only design. With FFP, it is easy to set things up so that all the busy stuff disappears out of view on low magnifications.

Now the criticism that most reticles in current FFP LPVOs are not sufficiently visible on lx without illumination and reticle illumination does not have a particularly long battery life is generally accurate, but not entirely valid.  First of all, it is absolutely possible to design a reticle that works fine in FFP LPVOs on 1x.  However, several companies deliberately do not do that. They choose to have the reticle disappear on 1x, so that all you get is a bright dot. A good example't that is what is arguably the most sophisticated tactical LPVO on the market at the moment: S&B Dual CC 1-8×24 That happens to be a dual focal plane design, but the idea is the same.  Steiner's new dual focal plane version of the M8Xi is set up in a similar way as well. Razor Geis 1-10×24 is FFP only and while the reticle has some visibility on 1x, it is not a ton without illumination.  The reticle can be easily modified to rectify that should they choose to.  March, with their dual focal plane 1-10×24, did exactly that. FFP reticle becomes very unobtrusive on low power, while the SFP reticle remains of the same apparent size. Essentially, it is a tree reticle on higher magnifications and a simple # 4 reticle on lower magnifications. The ACSS reticle in PA's 1-8×24 PLxC is FFP only, but it is set up to work just fine on 1x non-illuminated.  It would work in exactly the same way in 1-10x as it does in a 1-8x.

Then there is an argument that in 1-10x scopes the performance on 1x is not good, with Razor Gen 3 1-10x shown as an example.  He even has the camera show you a picture through the scope.

This is the part where I can't tell if it is incompetence on malfeasance.

1-10x scope is clearly not focused for the camera, while the other scopes are.  If I were trying to sabotage how a particular scope looks, this is how I would do it.  Now, I have seen a couple of other Youtubers make the same claim about the Razor and the pictures show the same thing: they either did not know how to set the scope up or intentionally set it up to look bad. Vortex bashing seems to be popular these days and is good for clicks.  Perhaps it is as simple as that.

Ultimately, the moral of this story is pretty simple:  FFP 1- 10x scopes are not simple to build, but it is clearly not impossible.  When discussing a scope, it is a good practice to understand what it was intended for.  Otherwise you end up with a straw man argument.

Oh, and when someone claims to have taken "engineering physics six hours a day, that usually though not always means that a sociology major is trying to impress an english major.  "Engineering physics" is a class for social studies people who need to fulfill a science requirement to graduate.

For background, I own two Razor Gen3 1-10x24 scopes, so I have spent a lot of time with them and have seen many more of these at Vortex' facility.  I have spent a LOT of time with two March 1-10x24 dual focal plance scopes.  I own two Primary Arms PLxC 1-8x24 scopes and March Shorty 1-8x24.  SAI 1-6x24 is here.  Tract 1-8x24, Steiner P4Xi 1-4x24 and PA Slx 1-6x24 are as well.  I bet there are several more I can not recall right offhand and that does not include a good number of various prototypes.  I have lost count of how many LPVOs of all possible flavors have gone through my hands over the years.  I was there essentially for the entirety of their evolution as general purpose AR scopes.  I have provided feedback and consulted on a good number of them.  Quite a few of the companies I provided feedback to did not necessarily follow my recommendations.  That does not mean they made a shitty scope.  That just means they prioritized something differently from the way I would, or had a somewhat different dsign goal or simply chose to go witht he feedback of a different SME.  There are a few of us around and we do not always agree with each other.  Design goals matter and they might not coincide perfectly with what you are looking.

One of the interesting things that happens after SHOT is that people keep asking me what stood out.  That is not necessarily an easy question to answer well because we all have different priorities and because some of the stuff that I really liked has not yet been announced and they politely asked me to not go into any real details about it.

One example of that is the Gen2 Revic scope.  I liked it and I took some pictures, but until it is announced, I will not say anything more than the fact that I found it extremely promising.  

With Revic bipod, while they did not make a formal announcement, they did have it out in the open, so I'll add a couple of pictures.  I thought it was very innovative and I plan to do a full review fairly soon.  Shooting supports are a big deal.  I look at bipods and tripods all the time.  What Revic has might be the better mouse trap as far as hunting bipods go.

Tangent Theta 7-35x56 looked REALLY good.  However, that is probably the least surprising takeaway from the whole thing.  They have been working on it for quite a long time and it will not be cheap.  It better be good.  How good it really is will be difficult to say until I get my hands on one, but at first blush it retains all of the strengths of the 5-25x, while adressing the few of its weaknesses.  It focuses closer while simulataneously improving eyebox.

With Element Optics, I knew what they had on the way and you already know that I liked the 6-36x56 Theos.  One of their projects that I could not talk about earlier is the HYPR7.  In a nutshell, this technology within a generation or two, will give us a somewhat similar experience, I suspect, to what Vortex has in the XM157 scope.  I will be doing a full work-up on that scope, naturally, and I will go into great detail on why it is a big deal.

There were a couple of binoculars, finally, with reticles in them.  One was the 12x50 from Apex and the other a 15x56 from Bushnell.  I am really happy to see them.  I'll try to review both and I hope they do well and encourage more reticle equipped binos in the future.

iRay is doing a lot of things right and with thermals they had some of the more interesting products.  Contrary to what you likely expect from me, it is not the $18k HD resolution thermal riflescope, although it does look very good.  iRay had a bunch of new products and they all looked well executed and thought out.  Whoever is in charge of product development there, knows what they are doing.  Still, two products really stood out to me: FAST FAL19 fused sight and RICO Pro.

FAL19 is, essentially, a Steiner CQT for $4k and nicely productized.  It fuses a 384x288 thermal with 19mm lens and a red dot sight.  Interestingly, Holosun's foray in the same field produced a lot of news, although it is only a prototype.  iRay's FAL19 looked pretty polished and it is available now.  To be fair, Holosun is promising to be a good bit cheaper for somewhat similar specs ($2300 to iRay's $4k), but I'd like to see how it performs.  The prototype did not look great in terms of image fusion, but we can't make any conclusions based on prototypes.  What I can say is that iRay looked very good.

Interestingly, the fused sight is distributed through a different company in the US, then most of the iRay products I looked at before: https://visirinc.com/product/dot-thermal-fusion-scope-fast/

The RICO Pro is also somehow fliying a bit under the radar and I'll be damned if I understand why.  If it works well without any durability issues, it will immediately jump to the top of my list of dedicated thermal scope recommendations.  Naturally, I did not take a good picture of that scope.  They did have a few for me to look at...

Simlarly new Rico G has a sleeker look and a very interesting battery setup, RICO Pro lens, however, means everything, if it works as advertised https://irayusa.com/rh50p

It is essentially a switch power lens that gives you either 25mm or 50mm focal length, i.e. optical zoom.  Thermal zoom lenses are really tricky to do on a budget.  However, if it works well, you have your wide FOV for scanning and close range stuff and narrow FOV for precision aiming all in one device.  That's a big deal.  People who have not worked within the thermal world seem less impressed.  The guy you see me talking to in the picture has been working with thermals for almost as long as I have and we know a lot of the same people in the industry.  We were both shocked that RICO Pro is not making more waves.

While we are on the topic of thermals, ATN introduced their HD resolution thermal scopes at the show.  The one I looked at had a 50mm lens and there will also be 75mm and 100mm options ranging from $5.5k to $9.5k.  The scope they had was a little half-baked.  I think they slapped one together for the show to have something, so we do not know how good it reall looks.  However, I think the inherent performance is there and they need to do some work to bring it out.  Until then, I will withold judgement.

On one hand, I am not really a huge fan of thermals made to look like conventional scopes.  On the other hand, 100mm thermal with a 1280 core for under $10k is a milestone.

There was a lot of other interesting stuff of all varieties, to be honest.  Spartan Precision has the redesigned Ascent tripod I really want to play with.  Field Optics had a production dome top tripod (I actually have one of these in my hands, so a review is forthcoming).  Leupold Mark5 2-10x30 turned out to be better than I expected and it deserves a separate post and a dedicated spot in my review plans.  S&B clearly wants to play and they are bringing out new products for both tactical and hunting markets.  Burris has an updated thermal coming out and sub-$1k scope with integrated display that talks to the turrets.  That's a really big deal since you never have to look away from the scope.  However, if you ask me what stood out the most to me...  that's the stuff above.

Editor's Note: this really excellent comparison is entirely a brainchild of Bill, who goes by @Glassaholic here and on Sniper's Hide.  Bill is a good friend and I am honored that he allowed me to post this here with my comments where appropriate.  Aside from a couple of minor things that Bill identified after he sent me the document, the text is unchanged.  My comments are interspersed through the text as "Editor's Notes"

Tangent Theta 5-25x56, ZCO 5-27x56, Schmidt & Bender 3-27x56, Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56, Vortex Razor G3 6-36x56, March G2 5-40x56, March 4.5-28x52 and Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56 Reviewed

PART 1 is here: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/post/3076448/alpha-class-long-range-scope-review-part-1

PART 2

OPTICAL QUALITY

I’m going to reiterate what I’ve written in past reviews as a reminder:  One of the most difficult areas to assess with any manufacturer is the quality of glass they use in a given scope model, or rather, how the image looks to the shooters eye when viewing the sight picture through the scope.  Traditionally when it comes to optics one generally “gets what they pay for” and hence the higher end optics tend to have the higher end prices; however, with new design technologies we have seen some scopes punch above their weight class.  It is impossible to take images through the scope to show the quality of the image to the shooters eye, this is because any image capturing device (e.g. camera) also has its own lens system which introduces its own optical aberrations and if the system is better aligned on one scope verses another it may throw off performance; therefore, you will not see any through the scope images because I do not want to skew opinion based on IQ of one image over another.  So, for this evaluation I took meticulous notes based on my naked eye observations under as best controlled conditions I could get outdoors.  Scopes were tested at multiple magnification points: 5x, 10x, 15x, 20x and 25x and a weighted average was obtained for the ratings below.  I would like to note that the March G2 5-40, the Schmidt 5-25 and the Burris XTR III 5.5-30 were all tested on a different day and different atmospherics can change results slightly.  Finally, I have separated out my evaluations on Pop and Edge to Edge sharpness with two separate criteria – close range using a test target and long range (> 500 yards), the reason being is that close range allows me to evaluate how well the scope can resolve a resolution target, contrast targets and color chart with as minimal effects from atmospherics while the long range testing gives more “real world” results – example, at close range edge to edge sharpness may look fairly poor when looking at letters, numbers and lines, at distance this effect may be diminished or appear less intrusive.

Optical Assessment criteria (rating lower numbers are worse and higher numbers are best):

Pop (Combination of Color, Contrast and Clarity) on resolution chart

Pop is the ability for the image to really stand out and come alive.  This is the overall impression your brain receives when first looking through the scope for given magnifications, keep in mind that some scopes have a better “sweet spot” than others, this sweet spot or the Goldilocks zone is where a scope performs best within its magnification range.  A detailed chart is attached

Pop (Combination of Color, Contrast and Clarity) at distance >500y

How well does the overall image look when viewing objects at distance.

Contrast (High)

My high contrast target has very bright white paper with very black lines, the numbers represent the smallest value I was able to discern. 

Contrast (Low)

My low contrast target has a gray background with darker gray lines, the numbers represent the smallest value I was able to discern. 

Chromatic Aberration (CA) Center

A hotly debated topic – CA, which is typically seen at the edges between high and low contrast objects in what is termed as fringing and usually comes in a band of color along the green/yellow and magenta/purple spectrum, some are greatly annoyed by this optical anomaly while others insist they cannot see it, one thing to know is it has little to do with your ability to hit a target, but can affect the clarity of the target (especially in lower light situations).  I tested for both center CA and edge CA.  One other area is CA sensitivity with lateral movement off the center of the scope, you can quickly induce CA in these situations which are often rectified by proper cheekweld/eye placement behind the center of the scope. 

Chromatic Aberration (CA) Periphery/Edge

Many scopes may have really good performance in the center of the image, but quickly fall apart as you move toward the edge of the image.

Color Accuracy

If you’ve ever heard the term “it’s all in the eye of the beholder” that in large part describes the experience of color for each of us.  It seems our eyes have different sensitivity to different parts of the spectrum and while I tend to prefer “warmer” images and am somewhat put off by “cooler” ones, others see colors differently.  For some reason, most Japanese manufactured optics tend to be on the cooler side while many European optics tend to be more neutral to warm.  For this reason I have always gravitated towards European optics; however, I am happy to say that March optics in general (not just this scope) have a color contrast that is much more in alignment with their European counterparts; likewise, the Vortex G3 had a neutral to slightly warm look that I like.  There are quite a few new scopes introduced this year from Japan and I’m hoping the Vortex represents a growing trend of neutral to warm glass.

Resolution (Center)

This is different from my line resolution testing, this is how “sharp” the image appears, I’m looking for details and the scopes ability to resolve those details.

Resolution (Edge)

Same thing as center resolution but now I’m focusing my eye at the extreme edge of the sight picture and determining if there is any image degradation that occurs toward the edges.  A scope can have very sharp center resolution but poor edge sharpness and it will give the user the impression that the overall quality is not very good.

Resolution (Edge)  at distance >500y

I added in this test because I was beginning to notice that some scopes did not perform so well in the close testing but seemed to do better at distance, maybe it’s because I’m not using the edge of the scope as my POA but instead using it to pick up my target within the FOV, I still prefer a scope that has superb edge to edge sharpness, but found that some scopes did not bother me as much as I thought they would at distance.

Resolution (at max. Elevation)

I set all scopes to 15x and dialed the elevation until it stopped at the top of the travel.  This represents using your scope to the very limits of its usable travel.  Obviously, some scopes have greater travel than others so keep that in mind.  I also did not re-adjust parallax as I feel this is yet another area that takes time which could cause you to miss your game or lose time during competition, the idea here being “dial and shoot”, not “dial, fiddle, shoot”.  You may disagree with my reasoning which is why I wanted to clarify my process. 

Eyebox Forgiveness

I have seen varied definitions of eyebox in the community, so to be clear, here is my definition which will help you understand what I am looking for – put simply, eyebox is the ability to be able to quickly obtain a clear sight picture when getting behind a scope.  Yes, there is some relationship with exit pupil and eye relief, but there is more than that going on that allows a scope to have a forgiving eyebox.  One thing to note with all these scopes, as magnification increases so does the finickyness of the eyebox.

Depth of Field (DOF) Forgiveness

DOF forgiveness is the ability to have both near objects as well as far away objects appear “in focus” in your sight picture.  An example would be to set your parallax at 500 yards and you notice that both an object at 200 yards as well as one at 1000 yards look relatively in focus.  Something to keep in mind is that some scopes may have perfect focus but parallax is off and vice versa, if this happens to you try fine tuning your diopter a bit more, if still wonky send it back to the manufacturer and ask them to calibrate.

Parallax Forgiveness

Similar to DOF forgiveness, you set your parallax at 500 yards and notice a target at 200 yards is parallax free, and a target at 1000 yards is also parallax free. 

Focus Forgiveness

How much, or rather how little, do you have to play with the parallax dial in order to get an object in focus as you change magnification.

Mirage (effect)

This is another one of those terms that requires a definition.  Mirage occurs because light bends to move through warmer, less dense air, this “bending” of light is the effect we see when our target appears to dance or wobble in the distance, we know the target is stationary but as the heat waves rise from the ground, the light is bent and gives the perception that the image is distorted.  What I am looking for here is the ability of the scope to tame or limit the effect of mirage, within the community this is often referred to as “cutting through mirage” and some scopes handle this situation better than others.  Keep in mind that my results were based on what I saw on the particular day I was testing; however, different atmospheric conditions can either decrease or increase the effect of mirage by quite a large margin.

Optical quality Test Results (higher numbers are better)

Editor’s Note: Testing at comparable magnification is tricky since the way magnification rings are marked is not reliable.  I would also really like to see a low light test and mirage test, but those can be tricky to set up.  The way different scopes render contrast and color makes a significant difference on mirage performance.  These subtle effects really come into their own when the conditions get challenging.

Field of View (FOV) in mrad

We can look at most manufacturers specs and see that scope X offers XX feet at bottom magnification and XX feet at top magnification at 100 yards.  This is great for knowing the extremes of your scopes magnification range, but what about in between, the results are not always linear.  Some scopes have pretty poor performance at the bottom but end up doing much better than other scopes at the top (NF ATACR scopes are notorious for this).  I should note that the diopter can have an effect on how much (or how little) FOV is seen; therefore, the results for each shooter with different eye correct may yield slightly different values.  My measurements here are from setting up each scope for my eye and then using my spidey senses to determine how much mrad of the reticle can be seen at a given magnification.  Measurements were taken using the magnification indicator listed on the magnification ring and is prone to error due to mfr tolerance as well as my own ability to set perfectly.  As such, take these values as a “general” rule, not as a hard fast rule. 

* * I completely botched getting numbers for ZCO, not sure how I made that mistake but sold the scope before I figured it out (these numbers are provided by @Huskydriver who graciously spent the time to obtain what his 5-27 shows at each spot.)Twilight Transmission (low light performance)

Editor’s Note: half-field FOV on the TT525P should be 38mrad.  I had a chance to measure it on several Tangent scopes and I am very confident of the number.

I set all scopes to 12x to allow for a larger exit pupil yet still give my eyes a challenge in the failing light.  From about 20 minutes after sunset, I begin testing both scopes side by side as the evening becomes darker and darker.  These results are very subjective and as I have aged I believe my eyes low light acuity has decreased.  You may have very different results depending on your age and how good your eyes are.

Resolution Line Chart (LPI)
It’s one thing for me to look through a scope and judge resolution based on a 1-10 ranking, but it’s quite another to look at line charts and determine how many lines I’m able to resolve at a given magnification, my resolution testing above is a good “first impression” but the line chart does not lie and provides a more quantitative result.  For most results you’ll see a range – it is hard to resolve exact values with your eye and I would try to narrow it down as best I could but sometimes eye strain, perfect alignment, etc. would get in the way.

Editor’s Note #1: the accompanying chart indicates that resolution tests, both daylight and low light, were done at ~33 yards.  That presents an interesting conundrum since not all scopes in this group can focus that close.  More specifically, TT525P does not focus closer than 50 yards.  At lower magnifications, it may have enough depth of field for the 33 yards distance, but I know for a fact that on higher magnifications, the angular resolution starts to fall off when the target is closer than 50 yards or so.

Editor’s Note #2: this also calls for an interesting question of how to treat higher magnifications.  For example, to get a proper apples-to-apples comparison, it makes sense to do them at the same magnification.  However, what if one of the scopes can go to a higher magnification than others.  For example, the March 5-40x56 in the table above does not appear to resolve as well as some others on 25x.  However, with the March, you can dial up to 40x.  Does it resolve more lines on 40x than lower magnification scopes do on 25x?  Same question for Razor Gen3 on 36x.  Add to this the fast that magnification rings are usually not perfectly marked, so whatever is the 25x setting might be 24x or 26x (for example).  In that case, testing scopes on the same, as marked, magnificationmight introduce some errors.

Other factors:

Sight Picture (HD)

o   ZCO 5-27: larger than life sight picture with very thin outer periphery

o   Vortex G3 6-36: very wide HD like sight picture similar to ZCO with thin outer periphery

o   TT 5-25: Large clear image, thick outer periphery

o   March 4.5-28: Large clear image, somewhat thick outer periphery

o   March G2 5-40: Nice image with thin outer periphery, narrow FOV feels closed in

o   S&B 3-27: Excellent sight picture but with thick outer periphery

o   S&B 5-25: Excellent image but thicker outer periphery gives closed in feel

o   Burris XTR III 5.5-30: Decent image, thicker outer periphery

Image/Reticle shift with magnification change

o   ZCO 5-27: None perceived

o   Vortex G3 6-36: None perceived

o   TT 5-25: None perceived

o   March 4.5-28: None perceived

o   March G2 5-40: None perceived

o   S&B 3-27: None perceived

o   S&B 5-25: None perceived

o   Burris XTR III 5.5-30: Slight jump during magnification change

Focus Shift with magnification change (requiring parallax adjustment for best image)

o   ZCO 5-27: Failed to record (memory says it was on par with TT)

o   Vortex G3 6-36: Slight adjustment above 20x

o   TT 5-25: Slight adjustment above 15x

o   March 4.5-28: Slight adjustment throughout magnification range

o   March G2 5-40: None perceived

o   S&B 3-27: Slight adjustment at 20x

o   S&B 5-25: Quite a bit from 5-10x and 15-20x at closer ranges

o   Burris XTR III 5.5-30: Slight adjustments from 10-20x

Tunneling

o   ZCO 5-27: None perceived

o   Vortex G3 6-36: None perceived

o   TT 5-25: None perceived

o   March 4.5-28: None perceived

o   March G2 5-40: None perceived

o   S&B 3-27: None perceived

o   S&B 5-25: Quite a bit from 5-7.5x

o   Burris XTR III 5.5-30: None perceived

Flare/Halation (direct sun on objective at 15x)

o   ZCO 5-27: None when centered, some whiteout when off center

o   Vortex G3 6-36: Very good, slight flare when off center

o   TT 5-25: Good when centered, image can quickly wash out when off center

o   March 4.5-28: Excellent, probably the best of the bunch

o   March G2 5-40: Excellent, no noticeable degradation

o   S&B 3-27: Decent with some flare

o   S&B 5-25: Okay, pretty heavy flare

o   Burris XTR III 5.5-30: Some flare

Editor’s Note: Flare is an interesting thing.  The wider the FOV and the larger the exit pupil, the harder it is to control it.  ZCO has fairly generous exit pupil, but FOV is comparatively narrow which is likely done to control flare/halation.  March 4.5-28x52 has very wide FOV, but the exit pupil is significantly constricted for the same purpose.  Different manufacturers make these compromise decisions in different ways.  Personally, I run a sunshade or ARD device to minimize flare whenever I can and prefer to keep wide FOV and large low power exit pupil.  However, that is not always possible, for example, if use of clip-ons is anticipated. 

Overall Optical Assessment Results:
TT > ZCO > Schmidt 5-25 > Vortex G3 > March 4.5-28 > Schmidt 3-27 > March 5-40 > Burris XTR III

There were a few surprises for me in my testing so I’ll try to comment on the rankings above.  It is no surprise to me that TT came out on top, I have owned multiple TT’s and multiple Minox ZP5’s (a sister design to TT) and they have consistently outperformed every single scope I have put up against them, that is until this test where I found the ZCO to be practically neck and neck and the fact it is only 0.1 points behind the TT essentially says that on any given day it could equal or possibly outperform the esteemed leader in optical excellence.  The big surprise was how well the 16 year old (design) S&B 5-25 came out, putting the tunneling aside this scope is still a competitor in this highly competitive field, I think of it like father and sons – where the Schmidt might show some wear and tear but can still teach the adolescents a thing or two, the Schmidt is definitely not past its prime and with the 2022 updates S&B has made to the 5-25, it has brought new life into this aging design.  The next surprise was how well the Vortex faired against these big name and high price tag scopes, at around ½ the price of the TT, ZCO and Schmidt, this is the kid coming from the other side of the tracks and steamrolling through the defenders, sure there is room for improvement but Vortex found the magic formula with this optical design which has proved to be the best glass I’ve seen from Japan to date, and that brings us to the other Japanese scope maker whose name has become synonymous with quality – March.  The March 4.5-28x52 is the shortest scope of the bunch and has the smallest objective as well, this would put it at a deficit from the get-go but this scope performs more like the “Little Engine That Could”, puff, puff, puffing it’s way up the ranks and beating out several other scopes.  I would say the biggest disappointment  comes from the Schmidt 3-27, looking at MSRP this is the most expensive scope of the bunch at $5500 and I expected optical performance to match this price tag; however, one must also consider this scope has the highest erector magnification range of any alpha scope out there, and while the Schmidt did not get as high points as many other scopes – no other scope can do what this scope can, and that is offer a very impressive 3x at the bottom end and 27x at the top, if you need a scope to do everything and don’t expect it to compete with the best of the best then I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.  The March 5-40 G2 comes in second to last compared to the rest of the alpha scopes which I consider it to be part of, it is still a decent contender and has some admirable attributes but it just can’t keep up with the other scopes in this class.  Not much of a surprise, the Burris came in last, but given it’s price point (now under $1300 street) this scope shows outstanding price/performance which is why it is almost always at the top of my list for budget FFP scopes

Editor’s Note: I agree that the 5-25x56 Schmidt is a better precision scope than the newer 3-27x56.  However, you have to keep in mind that the 3-27x was designed with a very particular military requirement in mind and that is what necessitated the broad magnification range.  The military customer required 3x on the low end for use with thermal clip-ons

ERGONOMICS

Overall Ergonomic Assessment Results: 
ZCO 5-27 >= TT 5-25 > Schmidt 3-27 >= March 4.5-28 >= March G2 5-40 > Schmidt 5-25 > Vortex G3 6-36 > Burris XTR III 5.5-30

The overall ergonomic assessment is based on the features of the scope, how intuitive are they to use, how easy are they to manipulate.  Location and function play a factor along with how smooth dials are to turn, etc.  The layout of the ZCO is just superb, from the knurling to the large numbers on the turret, the overall size, the illumination features – I think this is what every scope manufacture ought to aspire to.  Tangent Theta has a feature that is the envy of the industry – toolless turrets that are an absolute pleasure to use, no more lost 1.5mm hex wrenches, or grabbing the 2mm only to realize your scope takes 0.050 – what a mess.  Everything on TT is laid out very well and easy to manipulate.  One of the biggest reasons for the S&B ranking is due to the spectacular DT II+ turret design – whoever came up with this turret should be promoted to chief engineer because they exude quality in every way, yes, we can argue till the cows come home about the illumination tumor, but everything else on this scope helps it earn its position.  The March scopes would rank higher if they had a better illumination module, it is hard to manipulate with gloves on and difficult to keep POA while trying to adjust, outside of that these scopes are designed very well and laid out well, the short design of the 4.5-28 lends itself to better match with clip-on devices should night shooting be your game.  The locking turrets of the G2 5-40 are outstanding, giving TT and Schmidt DT II+ a run for the money, would love to see this design translate into other scopes.  The Schmidt 5-25 is an older design, and it shows, but it works and works well.  The Vortex is nicely laid out and the Zero stop/set feature is a clever design, but the function and feel of the turrets leave a bit to be desired.  The Burris XTR III ergos look nice, but function is poor, good news is it sounds like Burris took notice and with the Gen 2 version called XTR IIIi it sounds like they’ve cleaned some of this up.

FIT & FINISH

Overall Fit & Finish Assessment Results:
ZCO 5-27 >= TT 5-25 > March 4.5-28 >= March G2 5-40 >= Schmidt 3-27 >= Schmidt 5-25 > Vortex G3 6-36 > Burris XTR III 5.5-30

What I’m looking for here is anodizing quality, how each piece interacts with each other, materials used and function as a working whole.  Once again I think ZCO slightly edges out the competition, the scope I had for this review was one of their Cerakote models and they did an excellent job on mine, previous ZCO’s I’ve had were their normal black finish which is more matte than other scopes sometimes “shiny” anodization.  On par with ZCO is TT, quality reeks from this scope everywhere you look, the precise fit of every single part abounds with the precision that Tangent Theta is known for.  March is a boutique manufacturer that hand assembles each and every scope, if ZCO and Tangent Theta are at the top then March is not far behind and right there with them is Schmidt, known for quality before most of these companies even existed, there is not much not to like about a Schmidt.  The Vortex and Burris are a little harder to place, I’d say Vortex has a slight edge in overall craftmanship but Burris is not far behind, both manufacturers have some area for improvement.

AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT

ZCO
I am not a fan of the 36mm tube, I understand they say it was necessary for uncompromised performance at max elevation, but I’m not convinced.  Anyone who’s read my previous reviews of ZCO will know I am not a fan of the MPCT series reticles, this is very much personal preference, but I would sure like to see a less intrusive tree design.  Every competitor offers some kind of scope caps, whether they be proprietary or Tenebraex but all ZCO offers is bikini caps, not saying I don’t like bikini’s but a little more coverage would be nice.

March

The first item that comes to mind is for March to design non-translating turrets, that is - turrets that do not rise and fall as you spin them up or down, almost every manufacture not named Nightforce does that these days.  I would also like to see a similar locking turret design with larger diameter turret as is on the 5-42x56 HM.  Get a brighter illumination module like so many other new scopes that have excellent low light quality with no bleed but also bright enough to be used when the sun is out, and a different design (illumination) for easier manipulation of settings especially if wearing gloves. 

Tangent Theta

Get a daytime bright illumination module.  Larger and more bold numbering and dashes on the turrets, maybe even reduce the height of the turrets.  Reduce spacing on turrets to 12 mrad per rev and increase the travel to 36 mrad total.  Tangent should invest in better multi-coating to help eliminate flare when the scope is pointed towards the sun, depending on position there can be significant flare and ghosting which shouldn’t be there at this price point, sure you can put on the ARD to help eliminate this, but many will not be using that part for most of their shooting – I would be happy to tell TT to not put an ARD that the majority of users never use in the box and instead use that money to invest in better multi-coating to prevent flare in the first place. 

Editor’s Note: I would not be in such a rush to blame coatings.  See my notes on flare above.  I use ARDs and sunshades all the time.

Schmidt and Bender

Get rid of that illumination tumor – oh wait, someone at Schmidt finally listened and a couple new models in 2022 offer illumination in line with parallax – left-handed shooters rejoice!  The new 6-36x56 could prove to be a superb scope that has the potential to best them all, question is whether or not it actually will, we’ll have to wait and see as Schmidt is not known to be fast to production after models are announced.

Vortex G3

Fix those turrets.  Well, some could argue that they work as designed, that is to say they do work; however, the feel and function seem a bit lacking compared to even the predecessor Gen2 model.  Not sure who it was that thought a dog poo brown anodization color would be a hit, but most buy these scopes for their price/performance, not for their looks.  Larger and more bold numbering and dashes on the turrets – take a queue from ZCO and Nightforce.

Editor’s Note: I went to Vortex a couple of months ago and tried the turrets on several dozen G3 scopes.  They were excellent.  Whatever needed to be fixed is fixed. 

Burris

Get a daytime bright illumination module.  Loosen up the mag ring and parallax, do some more investigation with your knurling and what is comfortable.  When a customer says mag or parallax needs to be loosened – fix it, don’t just say it’s in spec and send it back.

FINAL THOUGHTS

This is the first time I have ever taken on a review of this magnitude, previously the most was four scopes and I think that is somewhat manageable, but this was brutal and will undoubtedly be my last review with so many scopes as it has taken me months to get all my numbers and thoughts to the screen.

Finally, reiterating what I mention at the very beginning, I am biased (we all are) and I have my own preferences and this review has opinions that are influenced from that, hopefully I’ve done an adequate job throughout the review to share where my personal preference comes into play in order to help you better evaluate a particular feature.  I might rank a feature as a 10 but you would rank the same at a 7.  A couple years ago I tried out a new scoring system but ultimately was not satisfied, I do not like giving numbers to any scope because there are so many factors that could affect outcomes at any given time, so any numbers I do provide are meant to be for that day and against those scopes I could test side by side.  Give me the same scope on another day and it might fair a little better or a little worse due to any number of variables not the least of which is atmospherics which are constantly changing.

So here is my personal opinion on each of these scopes

·        ZCO 5-27x56: May be the best all around scope on the market today.  Does so many things well optically and mechanically.  It is a work of art that could be in a museum someday labeled as “the best scope of the 21^st century” – well at least the first ¼ of the 21^st century, the only thing holding it back from getting a military contract is that 36mm tube.

·        Tangent Theta 5-25x56:  If ZCO’s museum piece gets best scope then right next to it are a set of turrets from Tangent Theta, I’m not sure these will ever be beat, after 8 years they are still the best turrets in the business, if you need toolless design there is none better, perfect for switch barrel rifles and those seeking refinement that is found in only the very best scopes on the market today.  The glass in the Tangent is best in the business.

·        Vortex Razor HD Gen3 6-36x56 (or G3 for short):  To see a scope that is half the price of the alpha’s in this group perform at a level (optically) that could keep right up with the best, I was not expecting that, if you’re looking to save a few pennies I have nothing but high praise for this scope and feel we’ll be seeing a lot more of it in the field and in competitions.

·        March 4.5-28x52 HM:  The fact that an ultra short can even compete at this level is impressive, if you need a short-bodied scope that has class leading FOV then this scope is a very compelling option.  May be my new favorite for DMR purpose gas gun use and is just as good on a nice bolt rifle, but limited exit pupil performance take it out of my recommendation for true crossover work where low light may be involved.

·        March 5-40x56 Gen2:  Decent optical performance with superb turrets but have a hard time recommending it when the Vortex G3 performs considerably better optically and with a cheaper price tag.  What the 5-40 does have going for it is a relatively light weight design.

·        Schmidt & Bender PMII 5-25x56:  If you can find a good deal on this scope in the classifieds then it is worth picking up as long as the tunneling issue isn’t going to be an “issue” for you.  The Gen2 model that Schmidt is updating for 2022 (why not just call it PMIII?) has some welcome updates to this scope; however, the brand new PMII 6-36x56 could very well take the crown for Schmidt’s best scope to date, but we’ll have to wait and see.

·        Schmidt & Bender PMII 3-27x56: A high price to pay for a massive magnification range, one must ask yourself if you really need 3x at bottom do you really need 27x at top?  I would recommend the ZCO or TT and even the PMII 5-25 if you’re looking for optical excellence, but if having that extra FOV at the bottom is critical, this scope is a great option, just don’t expect it to compete optically with the best of the best.

·        Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56:  It took Burris too long to bring illumination to this model, but alas, it is finally here.  These scopes offer some of the best bang for the buck performance out there and are one of the first I recommend for those on a budget (funny to think that a $1k scope is considered budget these days).  Is it good enough to topple any of the alpha scopes, no, but at 1/3 the cost or less most are not expecting that to begin with.

Editor's Note: I did not want to pollute the whole thing with affiliate links.  Most of these are available from Eurooptics and a few other fine retailers https://bit.ly/3tYC193

Addendum files are here: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/post/3076505/alpha-class-long-range-scope-review-addendum-file-1  and here: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/post/3076515/alpha-class-long-range-scope-review-addendum-file-2