Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm Field Eval Q&A

[Formidilosus]

Q&A for the Trijicon 3-18x44mm Tenmile. Review Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm FFP Field Eval

 

[BjornF16]

Weird how the RTZ group following the drop eval group was much tighter than the drop eval group itself...any thoughts on this?

Also, your 6.8 mils vs Ryan's spotter 6.9 mils...was that just a matter of your interpolation or were the stadia marks off in the scope?

 

[prm]

Thanks for doing this. Do you (or anyone else) happen to know how much of the basic internal design is shared amongst the Credo/Tenmile lines? This scope appears to have some in common with the 2-10x36 Credo. Same reticle, FFP, similar eyepiece, and dials, though the 2-10 is somewhat simpler lacking parallax and having red only illum. and of course much smaller. Clearly differences internally to fit different zoom levels and length, but perhaps same general design and build techniques?
The 2.5-15x42 Credo is SFP so different internals.
3-9x40 Credo is SFP and 1” tube. Different again?

 

[ChrisAU]

Thanks for doing this. Do you (or anyone else) happen to know how much of the basic internal design is shared amongst the Credo/Tenmile lines? This scope appears to have some in common with the 2-10x36 Credo. Same reticle, FFP, similar eyepiece, and dials, though the 2-10 is somewhat simpler lacking parallax and having red only illum. and of course much smaller. Clearly differences internally to fit different zoom levels and length, but perhaps same general design and build techniques?
The 2.5-15x42 Credo is SFP so different internals.
3-9x40 Credo is SFP and 1” tube. Different again?

I had a Tenmile 4-24 and still have my Credo 2.5-15x42, and there is nothing at all that would make one think they are different lines of scopes. Exact same turrets, external construction, etc. Could tell no difference in glass. I'm pretty sure they are exactly built using the same standards, but I can't say that for sure.

 

[Formidilosus]

Weird how the RTZ group following the drop eval group was much tighter than the drop eval group itself...any thoughts on this?

Could be just statistical variation, or could be the erector being slightly out of place after the drops. It’s why I don’t pay much attention to how small the group is, just did the shit land inside of the maximum cone the gun/ammo produces.

Also, your 6.8 mils vs Ryan's spotter 6.9 mils...was that just a matter of your interpolation or were the stadia marks off in the scope?

The stadia marks are correct in the scope, my read of it was off a tenth. The reticle in the scope has .5mil hashes, the spotting scope has .2 mil increments.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do you (or anyone else) happen to know how much of the basic internal design is shared amongst the Credo/Tenmile lines?

I do not know, however I would be very cautious trying to infer anything from this one scope about another, especially another model. Regardless of what this one does or doesn’t do, it is a sample of one.

 

[Ryan Avery]

They can look identical and not be the same!

 

[BjornF16]

They can look identical and not be the same!

View attachment 378159

Are they made in the same plant?

 

[BjornF16]

The Trijicon's are 8 mil per rotation...Maven's are 10 mil per rotation.

Trijicon should catch a clue

 

[Formidilosus]

Are they made in the same plant?

LOW for both. However, that has less bearing than people think. Just because LOW builds it, doesn’t mean it will work. They build to a spec. Those scopes that Ryan just posted a picture of are so similar that they can share the same turret thread cap, windage caps, and zero stop, have nearly identical weights ; yet perform vastly different.

 

[BjornF16]

LOW for both. However, that has less bearing than people think. Just because LOW builds it, doesn’t mean it will work. They build to a spec. Those scopes that Ryan just posted a picture of are so similar that they can share the same turret thread cap, windage caps, and zero stop, have nearly identical weights ; yet perform vastly different.

Ja...I get that. I wasn't inferring build quality. Possibly shared components is what I was getting at...

 

[Formidilosus]

The Trijicon's are 8 mil per rotation...Maven's are 10 mil per rotation.

Trijicon should catch a clue

Well, the Trijicon works, the Maven doesn’t…. At least to this standard.

While I agree in the 8mil versus 10mil per rev thing, and I have stated such multiple times, the reality is that the Trijicon is a high zoom, relatively lightweight scope that seems to work.

 

[Dioni A]

The Trijicon's are 8 mil per rotation...Maven's are 10 mil per rotation.

Trijicon should catch a clue

Trijicon held zero... Maybe maven should do some clue catching

 

[BjornF16]

Well, the Trijicon works, the Maven doesn’t…. At least to this standard.

While I agree in the 8mil versus 10mil per rev thing, and I have stated such multiple times, the reality is that the Trijicon is a high zoom, relatively lightweight scope that seems to work.

Trijicon held zero... Maybe maven should do some clue catching

Mea culpa!

I've spent quite a bit of time on the range with my Credo over the last few weeks. I find the 8 turns irritating, BUT...I'm very happy the RTZ works!

 

[prm]

They can look identical and not be the same!

View attachment 378159

I’d care more about the design of the springs (system) that holds the inner tube in place. Thats the part that moves if bumped. But that is interesting.

 

[Wapiti1]

I’d care more about the design of the springs (system) that holds the inner tube in place. Thats the part that moves if bumped. But that is interesting.

It's a deeper dive than that. Yes, the springs are important, but what material did they spec for the erector tube, adjustment screw, bearing surfaces, diameter of the erector (8 MIL verse 10 may tell you something) etc. What shape/size is the bearing surface, and did they specify a surface finish.

It's amazing how different the internals can be for something that looks like the same design.

Jeremy

 

[ID_Matt]

Mea culpa!

I've spent quite a bit of time on the range with my Credo over the last few weeks. I find the 8 turns irritating, BUT...I'm very happy the RTZ works!

Why is the 8 mil rev so irritating? Harder to add 3.7 to 8.0 than it is to add 3.7 to 10.0 or whatever it is you are dialing to?

 

[PNWGATOR]

It’s intuitive to calculate by 10’s. Easy on the brain.

 

[ID_Matt]

It’s intuitive to calculate by 10’s. Easy on the brain.

By the way I screwed up my sentence, totaling different numbers, I think I answered my own question!

 

[BjornF16]

Why is the 8 mil rev so irritating? Harder to add 3.7 to 8.0 than it is to add 3.7 to 10.0 or whatever it is you are dialing to?

What PNW said...

5 or 10 is intuitive. Find myself counting on the Trijicon...not that math is hard for me, just have to pay more attention