Trijicon Credo 3-9x40 SFP w/ Green Standard Duplex

Reference threads;

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ensive-Carbine

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....he-Civilian-AR

My carbine has recently undergone a bit of tweaking to enhance its long(er) range precision. It started with a barrel change and now includes a scope change - some background on that in the above linked threads. The purpose of this thread is to share my impressions of the Trijicon scope over multiple posts.

The scope has transitioned from a Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm to a Trijicon Credo 3-9x40. Here are two photos of the new BCM SS 410 16-inch barrel and Trijicon scope;

https://i.ibb.co/ph9JDpd/ss410-1.jpg


https://i.ibb.co/9t2Wx7s/credo-1.jpg


Initial impressions vs. the Leupold 2.5x20mm it replaced;

• The Trijicon on 3x is brighter (expected with the 40mm objective) and shockingly sharper with greater resolution and contrast
• Set to 3x, the eye box is at least as forgiving as the 2.5x20mm (but becomes more constrained at higher magnifications)
• While the 2.5x20mm always has a bit of shadow at the edges even with perfect alignment, the Trijicon is sharply defined
• The reticle is finer (especially the inner sections), which is preferable for the precision work but the outer posts still draw the eye into the center
• The reticle illumination IMO is excellent, though those who want "daylight bright" at high noon on snow-covered ground will probably be disappointed
• It's a lot bigger and heavier

I will be sighting-in the scope this weekend and evaluating it at the 9x setting. I will update this thread as I get more time behind the new glass.

Very nice.

I look forward to your further evaluation.

I just similarly updated one of mine with an 18" BCM SS barrel. It's wearing a 1.5-6×32mm right now though I'm considering moving it to my 16" midlength carbine and reglassing the 18".

To add to the back story in regards to the selection of this scope, in bullet point format;

• I wanted something with more magnification to leverage the precision capability of the rifle without sacrificing the close(er)-range capability of the Leupold 2.5x20
• I knew I was going to have to go to a heavier scope, but I wanted to strike a reasonable compromise between added weight and added capability
• I am fond of the simple Fudd duplex reticle when it comes to getting my POA on the intended POI as quickly as possible
• My plans include retaining the offset BUIS to augment close-range capability

With those points in mind;

• I chose the version with the "simple" Trijicon duplex reticle, which is actually well-designed
• I wish the magnification range was 2-9x, but the 3x low end is actually quite nice on this scope (35 foot FOV vs. the 39 foot FOV on the 2.5x Leupold)
• This model is the lightest offering in the Accupower/Credo line
• The 40mm objective offers a bright view in low light, even in the ambiance of burning buildings
• The illuminated reticle compliments the lower light capability of the scope
• The simple duplex reticle compliments the SFP design of the scope (why have a busy, hard-to-see ranging reticle if it's only good at 9x?)
• For this application, I prefer covered turrets that serve the same function as exposed turrets with the covers removed

As previously stated, I am very happy with this scope at the 3x setting, far more than I thought I'd be. The scope will default to the 3x setting and only be dialed-up when needed (like every time I go to the range).

I'll be wringing it out this weekend.

I like your line of thinking. I prefer the bdc reticle with either locking turrets or capped that can be exposed to dial as needed. I'd like to put a precision carbine type class on my agenda soon.

Spent some time with the new scope (and barrel) today sighting it in. I'm feeling "mission accomplished" in what I set out to do with the recent changes.

https://i.ibb.co/ph9JDpd/ss410-1.jpg


I mentioned in another thread that my first outing with the new barrel was somewhat of a let down. After a thorough cleaning, a return trip to the range yielded much better results, with a couple of 100 yard 5-shot groups hovering just over a MOA with the 2.5x20mm Leupold and the Speer LE 75 grain Gold Dot load.

Today I took two shots at 100 yards to start walking in the new scope (set to 9x), then moved the target to 200 yards to finish my 200 yard zero. It took a few more shots to finish walking it in, and the target below was a group I shot once I was happy with the zero;

https://i.ibb.co/Hr2TXrw/credo-2.jpg


Finally, the rifle is showing some true precision capability! Five shots under a MOA, four of them under a half MOA. Not too shabby...

I then spent the rest of the session banging steel, checking out the optical quality and testing some hold overs at 480 yards. Though the scope is not quite as sharp at 9x vs. 3x, and loses some contrast, the resolution remained very high. I could easily see the bullets splattering on the steel at 480 yards, and could make out a lot of detail on the pock-marked steel. The eye box tightens somewhat compared to 3x, but I found no problem maintaining a shadow-free view through it. Parallax seems well controlled beyond 50 yards, but is evident at closer distances.

I prefer capped turrets for this application and I'm glad I went that way. I thought this scope might have turret drums that are held in place with a threaded cap, but it turns out only models with the exposed elevation turret have that feature. The turrets on the 3-9 are the typical lift-and-spin to reset zero, and they snap down well enough that I'm not overly concerned with accidentally unlocking it.

As expected with a capped turret scope, there is no zero-stop to prevent dialing the elevation down past zero. However, there are also no horizontal hash marks under the elevation turret to serve as a reference, which is something that concerns me;

https://i.ibb.co/pxGCkSg/credo-3.jpg


I'm already devising a way to install a self-fabricated shim to serve as a zero stop. In the mean time I plan on painting a reference line in case I get hopelessly lost in my elevation dialing.

One other feature I wish this scope had are tethers for the caps. I have something in mind for that as well.

In all other aspects, the Trijicon Credo seems like a very solid scope with good optical performance for the price. I plan on comparing it side-by-side with the SWFA 10x40 HD I have mounted on my bolt gun, it will be interesting to see how the Credo fares.

At this point my investment in a new barrel and scope appears to be paying the dividends I was hoping for. More to come...

Just count revolutions to the bottom and you should never get lost. Write it on the inside of the cap.

This is why I prefer knobs and a BDC of some kind, I’m never satisfied with point and shoot, always want to be able to take the shot when the opportunity presents itself. Trijicon glass is very good, I was hunting this morning in fog with my 1-4 and it still stood out as good glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWR

Just count revolutions to the bottom and you should never get lost. Write it on the inside of the cap.

---

Thanks for the suggestion/reminder to try that!

I just gave it a try and it turns out to be perfect: it's just 2-clicks/.5 MOA short of two full turns to a hard bottom stop with my current zero. The turret has a very discernible hard stop when it hits bottom and "two turns up from bottom" is something even my low-bandwidth brain can remember. Thanks!

I have the SWFA SS HD 10x42 mounted on my precision bolt gun. This scope has top-tier construction and glass universally considered equal to scopes costing twice as much. I thought it might be interesting to do a quick, informal comparison of the two scopes by simply shouldering the rifles and looking for any differences in optical performance.

There are indeed some differences;

• The Trijicon is definitely brighter. Every scene I looked at was noticeably brighter than the SWFA.
• The resolution (ability to see detail) was at least as good as the SWFA, perhaps a touch better
• The SWFA has better contrast and flare control
• The SWFA has less distortion at the edge of view

In terms of optical quality for the intended use, the Trijicon's brighter view at 9x gives it the edge for PID purposes in low-light conditions. With its better contrast and less distortion at the edges, the view through the SWFA conveys a feeling of higher quality, but those attributes are more important for a camera lens than a scope intended for identifying and targeting.

Another informal test I conducted with the Trijicon was to observe optical quality through the zoom range. Working down from 9x it's obvious that contrast and resolution improve, as is the case with just about every variable magnification optic. But what jumped out to me was than from about 5x and down, the Trijicon is quite impressive. I've never owned any really high-end firearm optics, but I will say that this Trijicon at the lower magnifications is by the best I have I have owned in terms brightness, resolution, contrast, color fidelity and overall optical quality.

Since the scope remains set to 3x by default, this works out very well for me. If circumstances require higher magnification, it's nice to know the optical quality will remain high through the entire range of magnification.

Some DIY cap tethers I made with this kit - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

The only other supplies used was some electrical shrink tube to cover the crimp sleeves.

The caps spin easily in the tether yet are secure. I was going to capture both turrets to the scope via the ring, but this seemed a simpler way to go about it since it's only the elevation cap I'd normally remove. Additionally, both caps can be removed from the scope if needed. Pleased with how this worked out.


https://i.ibb.co/gthcVgw/credo-4.jpg

I really appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts and analysis in this thread and the one that preceded it. My initial rifle training and competition experience was with Aimpoint micros. When I started doing some 3-gun I swapped the T-1 out for the Vortex Razor HD Gen II 1-6x. By all accounts that is an excellent scope, but for some reason I was never that fond of it...I also never got to shoot many matches before demands on my time changed and I sold it off. I'm at a point now where I'd like to have some magnification available on a rifle for all the reasons you have discussed, but I can't justify the $$$ for a high-end LPVO. I know there are a range of budget options now, but I tend to be a buy once, cry once kind of guy...if I can't afford a high-quality version of something, maybe I don't really need that something. As you explained the factors that led you to select the Trijicon and your analysis of the reticle it piqued my interest, when you posted your impressions of the glass I was excited at how well it performed for the money, and when I stumbled across one (and only one) for $480 the other day on Midway, I'm lucky I didn't break my mouse smashing the buy button. :)

I would have had neither the time nor the base of experience to be able to evaluate the sea of options out there myself. It may be a while before I have a chance to shoot with it, among other things I need to build a rifle to put it on, but I'm looking forward to it!

@EricM I'm glad my ramblings were useful!

I spent some time at the range yesterday tweaking the 100 yard zero for my go-to load (Speer .223 75 grain Gold Dot). To use the Maximum Point Blank Range concept, I can preset elevation as follows;

• -0.50 MOA for 150 yards, which gives me a MPBR of 170 yards, +/- 0.6" max vertical POI deviation
• -1.75 MOA for 200 yards, which gives me a MPBR of 230 yards, +/- 2.0" max vertical POI deviation
• -3.00 MOA for 250 yards, which gives me a MPBR of 290 yards, +/- 4.0" max vertical POI deviation
• -4.75 MOA for 300 yards, which gives me a MPBR of 350 yards, +/- 6.6" max vertical POI deviation

For longer distances I dial-in drop directly (I created a small card with this information that I laminated with clear shipping tape that I stow in the grip).

No doubt this scope has greatly improved the precision and long range potential of the rifle. I'm also having notable success using the Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC) with the reticle illuminated and the front scope cover closed, which gives a natural unmagnified view and is RDS-fast once the technique is mastered. I've found the trick is to keeps the eyes moving, which at least for me prevents my right eye (behind the scope) from dominating my vision and turning the scene dark. Even with the eyes moving (scanning the scene), the illuminated reticle never leaves the field of view.