Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss V4

1% is very simple to detect there is 100 clicks in 25 moa. 1 click off is 1%. 2 clicks 2%. Keep talking smack. I don’t care. I know how my scopes track within 1%. Meanwhile you have no idea if the reticle is moving and effecting windage. Ie like it did in my 20x and 3-15 swfa ss scopes

Typo maybe? In the earlier post, you said the Meopta looked better to your eyes but here you say the Zeiss does. Just curious...and yes, what looks good to one person may not to someone else.

I have not tried one, so I can't comment on the glass qualities of the Midas line of Athlon scopes. If they'd use a reticle suited for my applications (low light), I'd give one a whirl. But reticles that light up like a Christmas tree serve no purpose for me.

+1

Athlon makes nothing that even slightly interests me. The fact they are made in Covid China makes them a no go. I would go back to iron sights if all that was offered was made in China scopes.

My 2 4-16 V4’s ride on a 257Roy and a 26Noz. They’ve been dialed all over and regularly shot out well past 1k. They do everything my NF NXS do at half the cost. I will own many more V4’s (and Razor LHT’s for that matter) as long as they hold up.

CC:

I think most readers here understand the arithmetic involved in deriving percentages. The issue with your "static testing" results on any scope you opine on being presented as the end product of a scientific process is how can we, or even you, know your equipment and procedures are capable of producing a verifiable and repeatable outcome that measures a number as precise as +/- 1% of 25 moa?

For starters, there's the manner through which your equipment is secured to the static structure. A vigorous turret turn could easily cause enough movement in the c clamps themselves and/or in their connection points to the scope base and the structure to effectuate the appearance of much larger tracking errors than 1%. Likewise with atmospheric or man induced movements in the structure itself during the testing process. Further, there's variables within the scopes themselves that can mimic tracking errors if not accounted for during the testing process that will result in the appearance of greater than 1% tracking errors, while in point of fact, the scope itself is working as it should be.

Perhaps you have accounted for all identifiable variables and, by extension, your testing is valid and I just haven't yet come across the in depth explanations of your tests.

At any rate, this is not to denigrate the scopes in reference; I hope they turn out to be great and all one could ever hope for. The reason I checked out this thread in the first place is research for new purchases. To that end, like most people in the market for something new, I'd like read reports of use and testing that contribute to understanding of the subject matter in a substantive way.

bad typing on my part, what I ment was that the Zeiss was better than the Meopro to my eyes.

Thanks for the clarification. That aligns with what my own personal comparisons have shown.

Starbuck -
Welcome go the fire.
Your post re: CC is spot on; he’s heard it before but perhaps not as delicately worded or as well articulated as your post is.
Thank you.

Bobby- have you peered thru a Vortex Razor LH? The new version has illumination and has profound optics......
I am no way a Vortex fanboy but the light hunter (LH) is something......

Daveh
I am not Bobby but I had a Vortex Razor LH for a short time. The optics were very good but the crosshairs were too fine for me. They were fine in daylight hours but when I tested them at dusk, looking back into the woods behind my house, they disappeared well before the NF, Zeiss, Meopta, Leupold, and Athlon did.
I know they are illuminated but to be honest I could not see why I should have to turn it on a good half hour earlier that any of the other scopes mentioned just be able to do what they did without illumination.
For my eyes, I think it would make a good range scope where most of the shooting is done is good sunlight but for me it was a no go for hunting.

Then, what is the purpose of an illuminated reticle?

the purpose is to light it up in low light not in light that every other scope tested against had no problem with.
The crosshairs were just a little too fine for my taste

Thanks AK.