Rifle Scopes Middle Weight Low Light Tactical Scope Evaluation Part II

[Glassaholic]

So glad to be off Scout and back on the "old" Hide

The Scopes – this year

• Minox ZP5 5-25x56
• Vortex AMG 6-24x50
• Schmidt & Bender PM II Ultra Short 5-20x50
• Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR II-i 3.5-21x50

The Scopes – last year

• Schmidt & Bender PMII 3-20x50
• Kahles Gen III K624i 6-24x56
• March F 3-24x52

Last year I did a full evaluation of 4 scopes and called it the Midweight Low Light Tactical Scope Evaluation - http://www.scout.com/military/sniper...ope-evaluation (this is a link to the old SH location on Scout and may no longer work). This is really an extension of that and while I no longer have some of those scopes I have added some others to my collection. My favorite scope of the bunch was the Schmidt and Bender 3-20x50, I think this magnification range works very well for a tactical/hunter style scope and the glass is simply superb, in fact, everything on the S&B is superb except for one thing, the reticle(s), I am not thrilled with the reticles that Schmidt has to offer, don’t get me wrong, they work and will get the job done, I just think there are better reticles on the market. I keep hoping that Schmidt will come out with a SKMR type of reticle and maybe 2017 will be the year. Because I was bothered by the H2CMR reticle in the 3-20 and the low light experience I had with the Kahles I sold them both and ended up getting a Schmidt and Bender Ultra Short 5-20x50 for my AR-6.5CM as I really like short scopes that deliver a lot of punch and there’s really nothing else out there like the Ultra Shorts. I then got delivery of a Vortex AMG in June and was amazed at the quality of a 100% made in the USA scope, huge kudos to Vortex on this one. I loved the AMG so much that I bought another one, well actually I traded my Ultra Short for it but then fell back into my same old ways and got caught in the hype of the Minox ZP5 being built by the Optronika group (same group that built the Premier scopes) and decided to sell my second AMG for a Minox ZP5. Instead of having you go back and forth from last year’s post above, I’m going to include the specs from some of those scopes below. This review will mostly focus on the Schmidt & Bender Ultra Short 5-20x50, the Vortex Razor AMG 6-24x50 and the Minox ZP5 5-25x56 but will include some comments about the previous scopes I reviewed.

Not everyone has the opportunity to run down to a local store to check out these high end optics (and most local stores don’t carry them anyway) so hopefully this will help some of you who are unable to get hands on experience but are trying your best to figure out how to spend your hard earned money. One thing I would ask, please choose to spend that hard earned money on one of the reputable SH dealers that you can find here on the site, they are very knowledgeable and great to work with (I think I’ve worked with most of them) and you will get support right through SH and save yourself the hassle. You’ll find that pricing might be fixed on many scopes; however, if you call one of the SH dealers directly and ask for the best price from an SH member you will most often find they can go lower than advertised.

Disclaimer: Evaluating optical systems is a very subjective process since it requires your own eyes to judge certain qualities while everyone “sees” things differently. Most of us don’t have the mechanical equipment and expertise to judge line resolution accurately but we can perform our own resolution target tests and look for CA in high contrast situations and see how much detail is viewable during poor light situations and so forth. I recently went to the eye doctor and was surprised that in my late 40’s I still have 20/15 vision so I think I can still evaluate looking through glass pretty well. Therefore, the results of these tests are purely my findings and should you perform similar tests you may come up with different results or opinions but that is because we all tend to see things differently, what looks good to someone may not look good to someone else, but we all have our biases and can be influenced by them. In my reviews I try my best to be unbiased but the simple fact is that there are certain features my eye prefers when looking through optics. I welcome constructive criticism but ask that you keep it “constructive” rather than flame about a result that you may disagree with.

Here are the pics of the scopes –







And here was the scope lineup from 2016 -

 

[Glassaholic]

Specs:

When looking at specs please realize there is nothing in manufacturers’ specs that will tell you how “good” the glass is for a particular scope. Generally with optics you get what you pay for in regard to glass quality (but sometimes you will pay more for lesser quality glass depending on the manufacturer). So when you look at a Vortex PST 6-24x50 and the Vortex AMG 6-24x50 and wonder, why on earth is the AMG 3x as much or more when it has the same specs, please realize that not all specs are equal, go in to your local sporting goods store and ask them to show you all the 8x42 binoculars they have and you will see everything from $200 to $2000 and yet they are all “8x42” binoculars, this should tell you something, that not all things are equal. The glass, the parts used, the process and a whole bunch more go into the manufacture of any given item which affects cost. Generally speaking the higher the quality the more costly it is to make the unit, so with the Vortex example it could be any number of things but with the higher price usually means better glass, better parts and materials and better assembly techniques, etc.

 

[Glassaholic]

Evaluation Results:

How did I evaluate – these are the areas that I focused on:

• Resolution (Eye chart and High/Low Contrast resolution chart. For the eye chart it was how many letters could I make out in each row and for the resolution chart it was how many lines could I accurately see before they blended into a blur)
• Daytime Contrast (I tend to prefer more contrasty optics because it helps my eyes discern more detail)
• Low Light Contrast (I set all scopes at 12x to be fair but also to stress each optical system)
• CA (Chromatic aberration – this is an optical phenomenon with mostly yellow and purple fringing that occurs at the edges of high contrast objects in the FOV.) This does not affect ones ability to get hits on target.
• Edge to edge sharpness (from the center to the edges of the sight picture)
• Color/Depth (how well the glass displays color, I refer to “pop” as the ability for the scope to deliver a sharp, colorful and distinct sight picture quickly and with depth, it is difficult to explain but easy to see when you look through certain scopes)
• Eye Fatigue (do I find that my eyes are straining and I need to take a break from looking through the scope from time to time)
• Eye box (how easy is it to get a good sight picture)
• Turret Clicks (how well do the clicks feel and how accurate can you click through the turret range)
• Reticle (how does the reticle perform through the magnification range and how usable are its markers)
• Parallax (how easy is it to set parallax, how accurate are the markers)
• Illumination (how well is illumination from low to high)

 

[Glassaholic]

Reticles:

The below are the manufacturer’s specs and I wanted to show how close the MR4 reticle is to the new SKMR 3 reticle with the floating center dot and .2 mil hash marks. The EBR-7 reticle is different but just as usable.








Disclaimer: The following images are for giving you an idea of how the reticles look through the scope, please do NOT use these images to evaluate IQ because the image through the scope to the naked eye is far superior than what my camera and lens can pick up. Imperfections in my ability to perfectly align my camera lens with the scope lenses will cause image degradation in some shots.

Here are the reticles at each scopes max magnification:

Minox ZP5 MR4 @ 25x


S&B PMII US P4FL @ 20x (oops, forgot to get a shot aimed at my favorite old truck)



March FM-1 @ 24x


S&B 3-20x50 H2CMR

 

[clay_breaker]

Good read and good info. I have been doing some research on this very subject. I am wanting everything we are used to in high end tactical scopes but in a short lighter package with a 30mm tube to go on a custom hunting rifle. I attended a show a couple weeks ago, and another one I thought had great glass was the Swaro Z8i, but they do not have any reticles that are useful, so I had to eliminate that one from the search. From your assessment, the March looks ideal except for the illumination and parallax adj, both of which I feel are crucial to hunting scenarios. The AMG looks to be the best all around for my personal needs, and I almost bought one yesterday, just wish it was a couple inches shorter.

 

[Glassaholic]

Chromatic Aberration (CA)

While the CA shown in an image is more pronounced than through the scope appears (because your camera's lens also exhibits CA), the below images do show how much better the Minox and AMG handles CA over the Schmidt & Bender. Out of many scopes I've used over the years, the Minox ZP5, Vortex AMG, Premier Heritage (Tangent Theta) and March scopes handle CA better than others, but again, I want to reiterate that CA has nothing to do with being able to hit a target, though it can affect the quality of the image you see through the scope, ultimately it is up to you to decide whether CA will be a deciding factor in your choice of a scope, keeping in mind that many shooters rarely ever notice CA even with some of the worst CA performing scopes (like the Steiner T5Xi series).

Disclaimer: The following images are for giving you an idea of how chromatic aberration looks when looking through the scope at high contrast situations (trees and branches against bright sky, snow with trees or shade, white targets on dark backgrounds, etc.), remember these images show both the riflescopes CA as well as the camera lenses CA so these images show more CA than what you'd see with the naked eye through the scope. Also, CA has nothing to do with how well the scope performs, it is an optical characteristic that has no affect on being able to accurately hit a target. Finally, please do NOT use these images to evaluate IQ because the image through the scope to the naked eye is far superior than what my camera and lens can pick up.

Minox ZP5 5-25x56 (barely any noticeable CA)


March F 3-24x52 (slight purple and green fringe at edges of white target)

Kahles Gen III K624i 6-24x56 (thick magenta fringe at the top of the target and cyan fringe at the bottom, this is representative of the bad CA this scope exhibits)

 

[Glassaholic]

Good read and good info. I have been doing some research on this very subject. I am wanting everything we are used to in high end tactical scopes but in a short lighter package with a 30mm tube to go on a custom hunting rifle. I attended a show a couple weeks ago, and another one I thought had great glass was the Swaro Z8i, but they do not have any reticles that are useful, so I had to eliminate that one from the search. From your assessment, the March looks ideal except for the illumination and parallax adj, both of which I feel are crucial to hunting scenarios. The AMG looks to be the best all around for my personal needs, and I almost bought one yesterday, just wish it was a couple inches shorter.

Thank you Clay, I have always loved Swaro but their lack of FFP scopes have kept me away, Kahles is related to Swarovski in some bizarre way but they don't have anything to meet your criteria. I would give more consideration to the March even though they are a little more finicky, the adjustments are more fine tuning than other scopes but not difficult to get the parallax set properly after you work with the scope for a while.

 

[Glassaholic]

Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR IIi 3.5-21X50 Illum. G3 Scope ET36215GI

I just finished my preliminary review of this scope and was not able to include it with the original evaluation; however, it does fit the criteria (barely though - more on that later) for being a high magnification (20x or better), being under 35oz (only in spec) and having good glass. A number of years ago I purchased the original Bushnell ET DMR and was highly impressed in a number of areas, but as my desire for better glass increased I found the DMR glass to be somewhat wanting in certain areas; one of those areas was in regard to the multi-coating they were using which had a blue cast to it and was very apparent during low light situations, causing the scope to "suffer" in clarity during low light. I do not know if Bushnell decided to upgrade the glass in the DMR II but I can say this, they definitely improved the multi-coating and the DMR II performed beautifully in my low light tests showing very good contrast and clarity. Another area of frustration was that, at the time, it seemed like every scope mfr except for Bushnell had an illumination option which really helps in low light situations, well with the DMR II Bushnell finally offers illumination and their illumination is the best daylight bright illumination I have seen in a long range scope, brighter than any other scope I have tested but also has excellent low settings with no perceptible bleed or ghosting in low light. The one area that Bushnell has shown to be consistently inaccurate on with its specs is the weight, Bushnell lists this scope at 34oz but on my scale it comes in at a hefty 35.4oz (the old DMR was listed at 32.5oz but came in at 34oz), now my scale could be off; however, it has been within .1 - .2oz for all other scopes I have weighed so something tells me Bushnell needs to update their weight or fix their faulty scales, this is really unacceptable in modern manufacturing. The addition of the built in quick throw lever is really nice and ought to be something all manufacturers consider as an option (Schmidt & Bender now has a new "shark fin" design) instead of having to buy a clunky wrap around throw lever, the lever is removable which is another nice feature for those who may not want/need it. While its been quite a while since I had my original DMR, the turrets appear to be lower profile which is nice, but I'd still prefer them to be a bit shorter. Clicks were concise if a bit mushy but easy to get where I wanted to go, one very refreshing update is the amount of travel, the original DMR was a pathetic 5 mil of travel per turn but with the DMR II it is up to the standard 10 mil per turn. Bushnell also came out with a new "G3" reticle which improves upon the original GAP design, but in my opinion not enough; Bushnell had an opportunity to draw from many of the new reticle designs offering .2 mil hash marks and while they did throw in a couple extra hashes between the 1 and 2 mil horizontal stadia points, it's just not quite as useful as other designs like the SKMR, SCR, EBR-7 and MR4 to name a few. However, given its price point and glass quality, I would say the new Bushnell DMR IIi offers the best bang for the buck, in fact, for glass quality alone, I would recommend this scope over others in the $1000 - $2000 (street price) class. And if you're looking for a "short" scope with at least 20x or more magnification, then unless you have the coin to buy a Schmidt & Bender Ultra Short, this is the scope for you. I think the new DMR IIi will be a huge hit for many shooters and will find its way onto a lot of AR and Covert/Short style rifles.

Some shots of the scope:

[/B]




Reticles:

Disclaimer: The following images are for giving you an idea of how the reticles look through the scope, please do NOT use these images to evaluate IQ because the image through the scope to the naked eye is far superior than what my camera and lens can pick up.

DMR IIi G3 @ 3.5x


DMR IIi G3 @ 15x


DMR IIi G3 @ 21x


DMR IIi G3 illuminated @ 21x

DMR IIi G3 illuminated @ 21x (in the shadows)

 

[Wyzrd]

Again, great info and I have to say that you have an impressive line up of glass and rifles you're working with there! Very nice, and keep up the awesome work! These reviews are very beneficial and help me to make decisions on glass sight unseen. ZP5 definitely and hopefully by next hunting season, an AMG too will be finding homes on some new rifles in my stable. Thanks!

 

[pinhead]

Thanks for reposting this over here; it's a great thread! I still love that MR4 reticle.

 

[Glassaholic]

Took the Bushnell DMR II and AMG out for a spin this afternoon and must say the DMR II is really impressive. Not as good in controlling CA as the AMG (but then no scope is except for March, Premier/TT and Minox ZP5) but not horrible, I'll try and post some pics soon. What really impressed me was the resolution, this scope (at least my copy) is really impressive for a $1500 optic. Eye box was not as good as the AMG (but again, the AMG is in another class) but not bad at all, it was still easy to get behind and has generous eye relief.

 

[Glassaholic]

Wanted to get some more time behind the DMR II-i, really a great scope for the price, my new favorite in this category. Also have an LRTS that I will be curious how it compares especially on my AR-6.5...





Targets at 100 yards away

 

[MWM-5150]

Updated thread with some new DMR II through the scope images.

Wanted to get some more time behind the DMR II-i, really a great scope for the price, my new favorite in this category. Also have an LRTS that I will be curious how it compares especially on my AR-6.5...

Man that rifle is some hot shit. Really curious to hear your thoughts on the LRTS as it's one of many that I currently have under consideration.

 

[pinhead]

I think next time you do a review you should put out a casting call on anyone wanting their scope reviewed; unless you like to fork out your own cash for scopes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Glassaholic]

You might be on to something there pinhead... does anyone have a Tangent Theta 5-25 you'd like me to review compared to the Minox ZP5 5-25

 

[Glassaholic]

I have updated the second post to reflect the final review results of the DMR II-i. It compares very nicely to optics costing over twice the price. I have also reviewed the Bushnell LRTS but will put that in a different post.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Might consider sending you my 5-25 Wjm


Covert is as Covert does.

Plenty of good feedback on the scout site.

 

[Glassaholic]

FOV - It's more than just a spec
I've been meaning to write about this for a while but wanted to get out a quick note. I think too often shooters overlook a simple spec when researching rifle scopes (or other optics like binoculars, spotting scopes, etc.) and that spec is the Field Of View. Most of us know about this spec, but do we "really" know about this spec. This number represents how much of that field out there that you can see at a given magnification. The manufacturer's always list the spec in regard to the minimum and maximum magnification setting of the scope, but it's really the "minimum" setting that you should be paying attention to and possibly even paying more attention to than the magnification.

Let me give an example of 3 scopes: The Bushnell ET DMR 3.5-21x50, the Burris XTR II 4-20x50 and the Schmidt and Bender Ultra Short 5-20x50

Three different scopes right, the Bushnell has a 6x erector, the Burris has a 5x erector and the Schmidt has a 4x erector. Right away I think most of us would think the Schmidt is at a serious disadvantage because it has the lowest magnification range and the highest low end magnification; however, here is where FOV is the great equalizer and in a good optical design can negate the disadvantage of magnification.

A quick look at specs show the Ultra Short is definitely the shortest, but the DMR II definitely has the advantage in magnification, if someone was looking for a wide magnification range they might immediately jump on the bandwagon for the DMR II, sure it's a little heavier but it's pretty short as well so it's really unfair to compare it to the Ultra Short with its 4x disability...

EDIT: Now I have to eat a little humble pie. Another Hider pointed out my numbers were off because I never adjusted the FOV from 100 meters to 100 yards and sure enough I went back to my data and found that to be the case. That is my bad and once those numbers get adjusted it is somewhat of a different story, the 3.5x and 4x definitely have the slight advantage in this case and instead of being about equal the Schmidt is about 2' less FOV. Don't always take everything you read on the internet as the source of truth, sometimes we make mistakes, to err is human right.

With the updated spec for the Schmidt there is definitely more of a gap than originally identified, but the values are still valid for comparison. The point is that we shouldn't just take magnification as the end all be all of a scopes performance, there are other factors to take into consideration.

So next time you're considering this scope vs. that scope don't forget to check out the FOV specs as you might be surprised at the difference, and when you can "see" more with one scope that typically gives you the advantage because it's not so much about the magnification but about how much you can see at the given magnification. One clear example of this would be to take the Nightforce ATACR F1 5-25x56 compared to the Minox ZP5 5-25x56, if you were to just look at the magnification rating you'd think the two scopes were equal, but a quick look at the FOV values shows they are anything but, the Nightforce comes in at 18.7' @ 5x (100yds) while the Minox delivers 22.8' @ 5x (100yds), that's just over 4' at 100 yards, 8' at 200 yards, 20' at 500 yards and so forth, so when you are looking through your scope and scanning for steel or game the difference between the Nightforce and the Minox could mean the difference of seeing or not seeing an object at the far edges of the FOV. Does this mean the Nightforce is inferior to the Minox or any other scope, certainly not, I just simply wanted to point out that when looking at the menagerie of specs that can sometimes be confusing, pay attention to the FOV and don't just discard a scope because it doesn't have a low enough magnification. My point here is to help fellow shooters understand that in the scope world not all things are equal and there might be more than meets the "eye", literally.

 

[deersniper]

Awesome reviews. Have you reviewed any Nightforce scopes? Thanks.

 

[pineoak]

Tag

 

[Fursniper]

Nicely done Bill, you should be paid staff! You certainly add a lot to the quality and professionalism of this forum. Thanks.

 

[scudzuki]

FOV - It's more than just a spec
I've been meaning to write about this for a while but wanted to get out a quick note. I think too often shooters overlook a simple spec when researching rifle scopes (or other optics like binoculars, spotting scopes, etc.) and that spec is the Field Of View. Most of us know about this spec, but do we "really" know about this spec. This number represents how much of that field out there that you can see at a given magnification. The manufacturer's always list the spec in regard to the minimum and maximum magnification setting of the scope, but it's really the "minimum" setting that you should be paying attention to and possibly even paying more attention to than the magnification.

Let me give an example of 3 scopes: The Bushnell ET DMR 3.5-21x50, the Burris XTR II 4-20x50 and the Schmidt and Bender Ultra Short 5-20x50

Three different scopes right, the Bushnell has a 6x erector, the Burris has a 5x erector and the Schmidt has a 4x erector. Right away I think most of us would think the Schmidt is at a serious disadvantage because it has the lowest magnification range and the highest low end magnification; however, here is where FOV is the great equalizer and in a good optical design can negate the disadvantage of magnification.

A quick look at specs show the Ultra Short is definitely the shortest, but the DMR II definitely has the advantage in magnification, if someone was looking for a wide magnification range they might immediately jump on the bandwagon for the DMR II, sure it's a little heavier but it's pretty short as well so it's really unfair to compare it to the Ultra Short with its 4x disability...

Manufacturer:	Schmidt & Bender	Burris	Bushnell
Model:	PM II Ultra Short	XTR II	Elite Tactical DMR II
Zoom range and objective dia.:	5-20x50	4-20x50mm	3.5-21x50mm
Length:	11.8"	14.9"	13.2"
Weight:	30.7 oz	30.9 oz	35.4 oz

But now let's throw in the FOV numbers and see what happens:

Manufacturer:	Schmidt & Bender	Burris	Bushnell
Model:	PM II Ultra Short	XTR II	Elite Tactical DMR II
Zoom range and objective dia.:	5-20x50	4-20x50mm	3.5-21x50mm
Length:	11.8"	14.9"	13.2"
Weight:	30.7 oz	30.9 oz	35.4 oz
Field of View (100yds):	25.6' @ 5x	25.8' @ 4x	25.3' @ 3.5x

Wait a second, what's this? That can't be right, how does a 5x, 4x and 3.5x magnification scope all have close to the same FOV? It's all about the optical formula, how the scope was engineered. So in reality, even though the 5-20 Ultra Short seemingly has a 1.5x magnification disadvantage you can actually see .3' more when looking through the scope. So while the Burris and the Bushnell seem to have the specs that would trump the Schmidt, in the end the Schmidt wins because in FOV it is the equivalent to the other two scopes with greater low end magnification.

So next time you're considering this scope vs. that scope don't forget to check out the FOV specs as you might be surprised at the difference, and when you can "see" more with one scope that typically gives you the advantage because it's not so much about the magnification but about how much you can see at the given magnification.

Does this mean that scopes with lower FOV values are bad or somehow of inferior design, not necessarily, the DMR II is still one fantastic scope for what it is, my point here is to help fellow shooters out understand that in the scope world not all things are equal and there might be more than meets the "eye", literally.

I have always argued that shooters do not lower magnification in a variable power scope to reduce the apparent size of objects, they lower magnification to increase the angular (which in turn increases the linear) FOV. Scopes that tunnel below a particular magnification are advertised as having mag ranges that, in my opinion, are inflated for marketing purposes; there is no advantage to the shooter in reducing the magnification on such a scope below the highest mag at the largest FOV (right at the point it starts tunneling). Personally, I benefit from all the magnification I can get the older I get. I consider the Gen I Bushnell DMR and ERS 4.25-21x scopes, but their mag ratios are not as nearly as impressive at my estimated 5x vs. the advertised 6x. It's even worse for the S&B PMII 5-25 (I call it a 7-25) with an actual mag ratio of roughly 3.5x compared to its advertised 5x.

To see it for yourself, using the manufacturer provided specs, divide the low power FOV by the high power FOV. PMII is 3.53x, DMR is 4.96x

When will scope manufacturers stop duping the buying public, I wonder.

 

[spife7980]

When will scope manufacturers stop duping the buying public, I wonder.

When we, the public, stop letting ourselves be duped.

I too wish for realistic specs.

 

[Glassaholic]

To see it for yourself, using the manufacturer provided specs, divide the low power FOV by the high power FOV. PMII is 3.53x, DMR is 4.96x

That is a very interesting ratio, I hadn't thought about that before...

 

[CBDR]

Good god, you guys dive deep into this topic. I find it very helpful. The poor clerk at the optics counter has no idea what he is walking into.

 

[pineoak]

Good god, you guys dive deep into this topic. I find it very helpful. The poor clerk at the optics counter has no idea what he is walking into.

From the perspective of shoppers that do their homework and only buy informed, the "guys behind the counter" are often FOS and spew BS. They pull #s out of the air and are wrong more often than they're right about a product. Don't trust their opinion and what they say, do your own research.

The reverse is true for the most part with specialty places like Hide vendors that specialize in shooting equipment/optics. Most of the sales people are shooters to some degree and have used/played with the products and more likely than not have actual knowledge of what they're selling. Not 100%, but closer to that than the big box stores by a very large margin.

If they have a specific sales rep for optics, then you're usually getting a very knowledgeable person as opposed to a random sales employee. Just my experience.

It's nice to have people like wjm308 who are willing to share their experiences and do the work of a write up which is a significant amount of time and effort. When comparing different people's experiences, it's a patchwork of opinions that have little reference between each other. With Bill's comparos, you get one person's opinion on multiple options on the same day using the same measuring tools which is valuable.

 

[Fursniper]

Good god, you guys dive deep into this topic. I find it very helpful. The poor clerk at the optics counter has no idea what he is walking into.

You are correct but most of us are not buying our optics from a clerk behind a counter. For one thing, most of those "counters" don't normally stock the scopes we are interested in. Secondly, the prices they ask for the "behind the counter" scopes is usually much higher than what an informed buyer can purchase the same item for from one of the fantastic Hide dealers on here or from one of the well known Internet dealers where the lack of sales tax and/or free shipping is frequently part of the sale as well.

 

[Sixfivesavage]

I for one would like to see more of the rifles these are being tested on? Bighorn and Winchester rifles are something to be seen, not hidden!

 

[FourT6and2]

Man I really want to see a Minox vs TT review

 

[adb77]

Thanks for the information it's very helpful.

 

[scudzuki]

Man I really want to see a Minox vs TT review

Me too. A friend who owns a TT scrutinized one of my ZP5s. When I told him I wanted a TT, he suggested I should keep the ZP5 and save my money.

 

[scudzuki]

That is a very interesting ratio, I hadn't thought about that before...

I arrived at my estimated mag ratios by dividing max mag by the magnification where tunneling begins. My "guesstimates" turned out to be good approximations of the ratios returned by doing the math with the manufacturers advertised FOV specs.

 

[Glassaholic]

Well shoot, looks like none of my pictures are coming through now due to photobuckets (new?) rules of 3rd party hosting? Why do they give you a link to host your pics on other sites if they don't want you doing so? Anybody know a good "free" image hosting service that works well with Snipers Hide?

 

[Conrad]

I've been using postimg.org. Doesn't even require an account if you're not inclined to make one. I've been using it for random forum photos.

 

[corey4]

I started using imgur about 2 years ago. Pretty easy to use.

 

[FourT6and2]

I use DeviantArt. It's really for people looking to host and share their art/design stuff. But you can upload whatever you want to a "scraps" folder and copy/paste the image links wherever you want. No crappy pop ups, ads, BS, etc. Works really well.

 

[jroberts1968]

My buddy swears by that bushnell . I own NF and Kahles and was thinking about trying the bushnell on a 308. I found one for 1300.00. I was thinking of 4-16 atacr though.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you all for your posts re image hosting. Imgur has come up a lot so I'm going to give it a try. Let's see if this pic comes through

 

[scudzuki]

I've got a few hundred posts with no pictures now, too.
Thanks Photobucket!

 

[Glassaholic]

I believe I fixed all the image links and have updated some of the review. My next review is more detail about the LRTS and the new Vortex Viper PST II 5-25x50 but now that I've moved off my acreage and back in suburbia it's going to take a bit longer...

 

[nijikon5]

I believe I fixed all the image links and have updated some of the review. My next review is more detail about the LRTS and the new Vortex Viper PST II 5-25x50 but now that I've moved off my acreage and back in suburbia it's going to take a bit longer...

Bill, would you say that the Minox is still your favorite for this range of scopes?

I originally snagged an AMG last year but sold it. I have a Gen2 Razor 4.5-27x but have a Minox ZP5 MR4 coming in ( tomorrow actually ). Excited to check it out. Going to my smith in 2 weeks to have my Bartlein blank finished, my first precision build.

 

[Glassaholic]

Bill, would you say that the Minox is still your favorite for this range of scopes?

I originally snagged an AMG last year but sold it. I have a Gen2 Razor 4.5-27x but have a Minox ZP5 MR4 coming in ( tomorrow actually ). Excited to check it out. Going to my smith in 2 weeks to have my Bartlein blank finished, my first precision build.

nijikon, please realize this is only my opinion and it is based on certain bias' I have toward certain features. The old adage of YMMV certainly rings true here. My goal was to find a scope that had a minimum of 20x magnification at the top end and a decent FOV at the lowest magnification setting to be usable for my purposes (about 20' at 100yds is what I settled on as a minimum because I could still frame an entire elk at 50yds with a 10' FOV and anything smaller than an elk should be easier to get the crosshairs on). I also wanted a scope that weighed less than 35oz because all my rifles double as both hunting as well as paper/steel and the less I have to lug around while exploring the high country the better. Because my shooting situations sometimes have me shooting when light levels begin to drop I wanted decent illumination, and a usable .2 mil hash reticle (again another subjective preference) with excellent optical clarity along with reliable mechanics (turrets, parallax, etc.) was also a must.

With that said, to answer your question I would say the Minox ZP5 5-25x56 is still my favorite because it excels in all the areas I just mentioned above. There are many other scopes that "could" work should I be willing to sacrifice some of my feature requirements. For example the Tangent Theta apparently has better glass, but it's weight is over my limit and it's current reticles don't give me what I want, the Nightforce ATACR F1 may be one of the most bullet proof scopes out, but it too suffers from a weight problem as well as poor FOV at the bottom end. The Schmidt & Bender that started the whole 5-25 craze also has weight issues, illumination tumors and a lack of reticle options that I would prefer (the LRR-MIL comes close but not sure if it will be too busy or too thick in it's final offering). I think the biggest contenders to the Minox ZP5 are the ones I've tested, the Vortex AMG, the Kahles K624i, the March F 3-24x52 and the Schmidt & Bender 3-20/5-20 scopes. If the Schmidt & Bender 3-20x50 had a reticle similar to the MR4, EBR-7 and SKMR designs I think I would be all over that as I really loved that scope and when the new 3-20x50 Ultra Short with the LRR-MIL reticle is available with the new turrets (early 2018?) as long as the price isn't in the stratosphere I may have to give it a whirl. In the meantime, I am more than content for my two main rifles to have the Minox ZP5 and Vortex AMG adorning them, what I'm waffling on right now is whether I want the DMR IIi or the LRTS to sit atop my AR-6.5CM and right now I'm leaning toward the LRTS (surprisingly), more to come on that soon.

 

[Hondo64d]

Wjm,

Do do you have a link to your LRTS review?

Thanks,

John

 

[Glassaholic]

Unfortunately I am in the middle of a double move after selling our farm, so I have not had the time to put into a full review and give it the time it needs. Not only do I have the new LRTS but I also have the new Vortex PST II 5-25x50 which I've been really impressed with for its price point. If you have specific questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer based on my limited experience so far...

 

[redroan45]

I have been comparing the specs on several high end optics for some time and I noticed the FOV on the S&B 3-27x56 is over 42 feet at 3x/100m. I thought that was impressive when compared with the specs of the 5-25x56 S&B, but at almost a $2k price premium I am not sure that is worth the extra cost for a weekend warrior such as myself. Anyone who has time behind the 3-27 feel free to school me, and to the OP, please continue your fantasic reviews (if you could get your hands on a 3-27x S&B i would love to hear that review).

 

[Glassaholic]

redroan, I believe the Schmidt 3-27 translates to 39' at 100 yards which is also what the 3-20 and 3-20 Ultra Short are listed at. They don't get you the 25x on the top end but they do get you the wide angle of view at the bottom. If you want the best of both worlds you will have to pony up the cash for the 3-27 but I think for most, the 5-25 or the 3-20 fits the requirement just fine. I prefer scopes with a wider field of view at the bottom end and don't mind sacrificing magnification if I can get better FOV, which is why I like the Vortex AMG 6-24 design better than some of the competitions 5-25 designs which have FOV values below 20', at 6x the Vortex (and Kahles) have more FOV than some of the 5-25's out there, but there are many more factors to consider as well, there is not one feature that I think any scope has that would make it any better than other scopes within its class; we can argue about this scope having better glass, that scope having better reticles and yet another having better turrets but the fact of the matter is that many shooters are using all these scopes quite proficiently for their sport. My advice would be to get the scope that best fits your shooting style and stick with it, if you find yourself being persuaded by forum posts or blogs to get a different scope you have to ask why, what benefits are you going to gain by obtaining a different scope. Obviously, your current scope may have certain limitations, but we're human and we're capable of adapting to situations quite remarkably.

 

[TheBigCountry]

Anyone know where to find one of the DMR II-i's at a good price?

 

[Glassaholic]

Anyone know where to find one of the DMR II-i's at a good price?

Watch the classifieds here. If you want brand new then I'd highly recommend the Hide vendors, call them and tell them you're a Hide member and they'll usually give you a better deal that what's advertised.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

wjm308 , over here in Australia it's particularly difficult to get behind the alpha scopes. I'm about a three hour drive to the nearest city that would stock them and even then I'd be in for multiple trips to various stores. With that in mind thanks for taking the time to publish such a thorough and thoughtful review of the scopes you selected - I really appreciate the reasoned way you weighed the various qualities of the different options. I just ordered the Minox with MR4 based in no small part on your article - they should be sending you a commission cheers, BP

 

[BurnOut]

I haven't had a chance to go through this with a fine-tooth comb yet, but I wanted to make sure to join those offering thanks to wjm308 for both doing these comparisons, and for posting the results! I realize that there's a significant financial and time investment involved, and to share this info with a bunch of goobers on the Internet with no vested interest (of which I am aware) on his part is extraordinarily generous... as far as I am concerned, wjm, ILya, and KSE are in a class of their own in this regard. Kudos!