Tanget Theta 3-15x50mm Scope Evaluation

[Formidilosus]

This will be a running evaluation on a TT 3-15x50mm Professional Marksman scope with Gen2 XR reticle. I am not being paid to evaluate, nor is it for TT. It is a sample of one. A single sample is not “data”. If it does well, that doesn’t mean the majority will; if it does poorly, that doesn’t mean the majority will either.
That said, a failure in a single sample has a higher probability of showing an issue that is common across the line, than a single sample doing well showing that they all will.

I will report everything exactly as it happens, good or bad.


The TT scopes are widely stated to be the top rifle scope for long range shooting, or at least one of the top two scopes for LR. I have shot with TT’s infrequently and with no real heavy use. The relatively little time I have on them never struck me as the scopes being anything earth shattering- good glass, good eyebox, so-so reticles, and they seemed to adjust correctly; but nothing that really stood out. This isn’t a mark against the TT’s really, as I don’t need or require features or gimmicks to make a good aiming device. I’m just noting that nothing stood out to me, or those I shoot with that have used them.


They certainly have a reputation in the precision rifle world. The issue for me is that in all the people I have spoke to, and all the TT’s I have seen on ranges not one looked like it had ever been out of the safe. Every single one looked as if it has spent it’s entire life covered in bubble wrap. Worse, is all the shooters treated them as such. I have seen a few that were being used on rifles as a work thing, however even those shooters treated them more like eggshell porcelain than an aiming device.
I have asked all how they work with heavy use, and all I get is either a statement about “how everyone knows they’re the best”, or about the “glass” and “quality”. The issue is that I have seen, and continue to see so very many scopes fail in use, that I don’t trust any of them regardless of manufacture or “reputation” until serious use has been done. The USMC 3-12x S&B while not perfect, has shown itself to be in general a reliable and durable optic in both longevity of heavy use, and “testing” multiple samples. Same for NF NXS and ATACR US Mil issued scopes, with the NXS F1 Milspecs most likely being the most reliable sniper optic ever issued.

So the big question isn’t “how’s the glass”, or “how the turrets feel”, or any other secondary nonsense. The important question is do they work. Do they hold zero even with rough handling, do they “track”, do they return to zero, etc. You know.... things a scope is supposed to do. They’re tracking and adjustments, and return to zero have been demonstrated quite a bit. But no one has seriously used them with heavy, hard field use and logged the results that I can find.

Again, a single sample doesn’t tell much, but it is going to be used heavily.


So...

 

[Formidilosus]

The scope specs have been written about ad nausea, therefore I won’t go heavy into it. It’s a relatively large, heavy FFP 3-15x long range scope. The reticle is the Gen 2 XR example.


Scope was mounted in pic rings in the standard way I have written about with everything being degreased, thread locker applied, and torqued correctly.






The rifle used for the beginning will be a T3 Tactical that has been permanently bonded to the chassis assuring no zero shift due to action movement, as well as the picatinny rail being permanently bonded. This rifle has been used repeatedly for evaluations, and is proofed with a NF NXS Milspec to prove that the systems holds zero before evaluating any scope.

It is the top rifle (the Minox ZP5 is also being evaluated).

 

[Bubblehide]

Thanks for this Form!

 

[Formidilosus]

The first trip was short (60 something rounds). Was unable to bore sight due to the raised non quick adjustable pad, so found a rock on a hill around 200 yards away and fired a couple of shots. Came ups 8 Mils, and left 1 mil. Went to paper.

Fired one round, which was high and right, came down .7, left .4 and shot 7 rounds.



The elongated hole in the left dot are the seven rounds. Keep in mind this is at 113 yards (IIRC). Adjusted right .1 and reset the turret.

Next was checking adjustment value. Normally this would be done with the scope mounted on a vice and the “tracking” checked on a tracking board. I didn’t have it, and there have been enough legitimate reviews showing correct tracking that I don’t personally care. However, what I do care about is the RTZ (return to zero) and group size comparison when dialed as that has shown with most scopes a difference or errors.
Two dots placed as far apart as I could get with the target I was using. In both the scope and spotter, they measured 6.3 mils with the reticles between centers on the dots.
Fired a round at the bottom dot, dialed 6.3 mils, aimed at the bottom dot and fired. Dialed down 6.3 mils, fired, up 6.3mils, etc, etc. Did this for ten rounds and did not expect to see any large error. All aimed at the bottom dot.
Shooting is NOT a very accurate way to measure increment value. It takes a really, really, good gun with consistent sub MOA 10+ round groups, and big adjustment range (10+ mil/30+ MOA) to see anything worthwhile. This gun, with this lot of ammo is a very consistent .8-.9 MOA gun for ten rounds. After the 10 rounds there did show an error of about 1.5%, however that is within a margin of error of shooting. More shooting will reveal any issues, but I do not expect anything unusual with adjustments and tracking.




The thing that is notable, is that the bottom “group” of 5 rounds are significantly larger than the standard for the rifle. I do this often, and this exact rifle and ammo will consistently shoot both “groups” inside of those 1” dots with multiple scopes. Again, more shooting will reveal any issues, but that is something to note.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I'm in on this thread. Also interested in hearing more about bonding actions into a chassis if you care to elaborate on that topic, maybe in another thread to keep this one on track.

 

[Formidilosus]

At this point a couple of things stood out. The reticle is lost very easily in cluttered backgrounds below around 10x. It was an overcast day, about an hour from legal light- so not good condiations (or maybe the best conditions?). When I initially went to sight it on the rock, I was struck at how hard the reticle was to see and how small it seemed. Like annoyingly difficult. I had just shot both a 5-25 Minox on 8x and a SWFA 6x and had no issues seeing the reticle. So I grabbed the SWFA again and checked, no issues. Looked at the TT again and saw that the included cat tail was hitting the pic base and stopping the mag ring at 10x. Moved that back, and the reticle was fine at 15x. But going back to 10x and below it was surprising how hard it is to see. More on this later…


The real initial “test” is zero retention through impacts. This is done by confirming zero, then dropping the rifle once on each side (right/left/top) from 18”. Then again from 36”. And then finally three drops on each side from 36”. This is done on a .5” padded shooting mat on soft ground- in this case wet mud. It is not done in concrete or any hard surface.

No, this is not a scientific evaluation. Yes, it is quite repeatable, and does show whether a scope will maintain zero or not from impacts and drops. In hundreds of different makes and models of scopes, only two have passed this without losing zero and then subsequently had an issue later- some Trijicons 1-8x FFP’s whose reticles will rotate at starting around 3k rounds, and the Meopta Optica 6 that I wrote about that failed with just under 3k centerfire and 2,500’ish rimfire rounds. The only true failure has been the Meopta. The Trijicons mounted zero and adjusted correctly, but with a canted reticles.

In any case, it works to show if a scope will fend abuse.


One shot on a 1” dot to proof its zero-




Then we start. Due to the target size and precision of the rifle, any round inside the dot is fine, any round out side is not.
The right and left side 18” showed rounds impacting inside the dot, the top 18” drop showed a .2 mil shift high (high as it should if it shifts).




This happens sometimes when the erector gets bound up, with the first shot being off than subsequent shots dropping back to zero. This was the case here. Went to another target and the next shot cut the .25” diamond.





So returned to the single 36” drops which showed no shifts at all. The 3x3 36” drops however did result in a noticeable shift. You can see the high shift from the 18” top drop, all the 36” single drop shots, and the low shot from the 3x3 drops.


Again went to another target to see if it would settle back in, and also spun the turrets up and down, left and right several times and shot again which was low as well.




Went back to the “proof” target and shot the final round which hit low on the dot.




More shooting confirmed that it had shifted down .3 mils.

 

[Formidilosus]

Here’s the whole target-




Rifle during the drop-



After the drops-





Once rezeroed, myself and two others shot another 30’ish rounds at a 14” plate set at 1,050 yards. Again, with around 30 minutes before sunset all proffered the THLR reticle at distance, and the TT reticle was much harder to see at lower powers than either other the 6x SWFA and especially the TLHR reticle in the ZP5.
It should be stated that I find most of the “reticle can’t be seen on low power” that people talk about with FFP scopes to be vastly exaggerated, with this one- no. It genuinely disappears in low light in treed and grassy areas at less than 50 yards- Horus reticle level hard to see.
The SWFA bold outer posts have a usable reticle to aim with, and the THLR reticle is spectacular on low power (and high, and everywhere in between). Definitely more use is warranted, but this was the only thing that surprised myself and the others. I expected it to adjust correctly, and I did not expect it to pass the drops, but I did not expect the reticle to give so much issue.

I’ll get some pics of the reticles later, but this is where it sits. It will be shot quite a bit this week- thousand plus rounds, and I’ll get to see more about the eyebox, reticle, FOV, etc., as well as zero retention through regular use.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm in on this thread. Also interested in hearing more about bonding actions into a chassis if you care to elaborate on that topic, maybe in another thread to keep this one on track.

Sure. It’s not complicated. What do you want to know?

 

[WeiserBucks]

Sure. It’s not complicated. What do you want to know?

Its something that I've often considered, just concerned about potential feeding issues, future barrel swaps ect. I've done a few DIY bedding jobs and I always end up doing a fair amount of clean up afterwards to ensure mags fit, feed and function, seems like there's always a bit of epoxy that ends up where it doesn't belong. I'm no gunsmith but I figured once an action is bonded, it better be right because there will be no disassembling it make corrections!

 

[Lawnboi]

Looking forward to see the piss beat out of that thing. Iv seen a handful tangents at matches but never one that looked like it was used on the field a lot.

 

[Formidilosus]

Its something that I've often considered, just concerned about potential feeding issues, future barrel swaps ect. I've done a few DIY bedding jobs and I always end up doing a fair amount of clean up afterwards to ensure mags fit, feed and function, seems like there's always a bit of epoxy that ends up where it doesn't belong. I'm no gunsmith but I figured once an action is bonded, it better be right because there will be no disassembling it make corrections!

That’s certianly a consideration. Depending on what bonding agent is used, heat (oven) can be utilized to separate them, but you probably want to get the barrel off first.

With good actions and chassis I’m not sure for most uses that it makes much sense. This exact rifle was used before it was bonded to do the same things, and it never lost zero. It was bonded just to remove a potential variable. Bonded AI’s are used as well, however they present an odd and unexpected issue sometimes…. The bolt handles can bend. Doesn’t effect function, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[dogman11]

does that scope have the red lighted reticle?
I have a TT 5-25 that has it with like 10 different shades of red

 

[dogman11]

I'm curious about this scope because the 5-25 gathers much more light than anything else I've looked thru, it cheats the dark by at least 10 more minutes than anything else i have

 

[Formidilosus]

does that scope have the red lighted reticle?
I have a TT 5-25 that has it with like 10 different shades of red

I'm curious about this scope because the 5-25 gathers much more light than anything else I've looked thru, it cheats the dark by at least 10 more minutes than anything else i have

It is illuminated. Haven’t used it, but with illumination it will be visible. However, a reticle that requires illumination isn’t an optimum general purpose scope.

 

[dogman11]

but i do agree with you the lines in the reticle are very fine on low power and hard to see if not lit up

 

[dogman11]

That knob beside the parallex changes the level of red

 

[TxxAgg]

Tuned in

 

[Dobermann]

Yay! A few of us have been hoping for this for a while.

Looks like there's a chance this might hurt some people's feelings, but, given the high price of the scopes and a certain kind of snobbery that is sometimes attached to them ... I'm not worried.

Would be great to see if you can eventually test a ZCO, as these are both more affordable (for some), and seem to get harder field use ...

 

[Formidilosus]

Looks like there's a chance this might hurt some people's feelings, but, given the high price of the scopes and a certain kind of snobbery that is sometimes attached to them ... I'm not worried.

Oh there’s no doubt. I’m sure certain people will get get very upset. But I will report exactly what happens.

Would be great to see if you can eventually test a ZCO, as these are both more affordable (for some), and seem to get harder field use ...

I will eventually. There’s just not much need for any of these “premier” scopes. Neither the ZCO or TT has shown any functional differences over Nightforce Milspecs yet cost considerably more and therefore don’t get much play for hard use.

 

[260madman]

I’m interested in the drop test end. My 6X SWFA equipped rifle slipped from my fingertips at waist height opening weekend and landed on the elevation turret on frozen clay soil. Shrugged my shoulders and shot it 5 days later to check zero. It held. My Weaver 3-15 Tactical attached to my 308 AR bounces around uncased in my camper and truck and has landed on the floor of the camper more than once, it has held zero. If the TT can’t handle it at least it will get likes on Instagram.