-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Steiner T6xi
- Thread starter M77
- Start date
The "bigger" difference between the 3-18 and 2.5-15 is the objective diameter, to me that is what you're getting with the 3-18 that really differentiates, not just in brightness but also being very forgiving to get behind.I couldn't agree more. The original reason I went with the 2.5-15 is on Eurooptics website it shows the SCR reticle was in red. I wanted a red reticle as the SCR2 reticle I received was in green. To my dismay, when I received the 2.5-15 with the SCR reticle it also was green. I gave EO this information and they still show a red reticle on their website. The 2.5-15 is an inch shorter, 4 oz lighter, 8 ft better at low magnification for field of view and the kicker is I did not notice a difference at all between 18x and 15x so I went with the latter as this scope is mounted on my hunting rifle.
On paper that is correct. However, I noticed no discernible difference when they were side by side and I looked through them well past dusk. Also keep in mind that with the 56mm objective you have to raise the scope up pretty high. I didn't like the way it sat on my rifle with extra high rings. It wasn't a natural fit for me. I also liked the larger illuminated reticle of the SCR. 6 mils of illumination vs 3 mils in SCR2.
Your reasons above are valid and worthy of consideration. It is strange that Steiner offers different reticles for the different scopes.On paper that is correct. However, I noticed no discernible difference when they were side by side and I looked through them well past dusk. Also keep in mind that with the 56mm objective you have to raise the scope up pretty high. I didn't like the way it sat on my rifle with extra high rings. It wasn't a natural fit for me. I also liked the larger illuminated reticle of the SCR. 6 mils of illumination vs 3 mils in SCR2.
You really have to look at the details and contrast in the shadows, I too find it very difficult to discern between 56mm and 50mm in low light, so much so that I will usually tell shooters if they want the absolute best low light performance then choose the 56mm, but 50mm can get the job done for most, especially when it's good glass, in fact, I think good glass makes more of a difference than objective size for low light shooting. I would gladly take a 50mm (even 42mm) scope with good glass and good micro-contrast characteristics over a larger objective scope any day.
Just read through all 22 pages of 1,054 posts. Gotta say this thread holds pretty true for how many posts it has. Sometimes it goes a little off track into the weeds a bit, but always comes back to the original topic. I really appreciate @Glassaholic, @Huskydriver and @Rob01 massive input.
One question to anyone/everyone. Other than post #855, I don’t see any real side by side comparisons to the MK5HD?
I’m building a switch barrel rifle that will have all the different GT variants and have been looking at the MK5 7-35.
But the T6 has peaked my interest considerably.
Has anyone done a side by side of a
Mk5 5-25 vs a 5-30 t6?
Inquiring minds want to know
One question to anyone/everyone. Other than post #855, I don’t see any real side by side comparisons to the MK5HD?
I’m building a switch barrel rifle that will have all the different GT variants and have been looking at the MK5 7-35.
But the T6 has peaked my interest considerably.
Has anyone done a side by side of a
Mk5 5-25 vs a 5-30 t6?
Inquiring minds want to know
Manners Composite Stocks PRS-TCS
Manners Composite Stocks PRS-TCS available at Sportsman’s Finest. Check out our selection of Manners in store or online, we have the best rifle stocks for sale!sportsmansfinest.com
Gents,
I've got a Steiner T6Xi 5-30 on my wife's rifle with the SCR reticle.
I've got a 5-25 MK5 with the PR2 reticle coming this Monday. Once it's here i'll give you some initial impressions between the two. I can only give you a surface level impression of the MK5 because I wont have any trigger time on it yet. I do however have pretty extensive trigger time behind my MK5 HD 3.6-18 with the PR2 so hopefully the 5-25 is in line with that performance wise. Check back on Monday or Tuesday if you want to know what my thoughts are!
EDIT: Pending UPS fuckery, the MK5HD should be delivered tomorrow. I'll get some impressions up sooner than expected! I may even get to shoot it this weekend but i doubt it.
Last edited:
My apologies. I've been really busy at work.
I've shot both, side by side so I can give a decent opinion. I'll try and break this down accordingly.
GLASS:
Steiner:
Very bright and clear glass. I don't really notice any CA but my eye's aren't that refined. All the way up to 30, the glass looks clear and doesn't really darken or take on any weird fishbowl effect. I've only shot this optic against a green, grass background. I can't really say if the optic will fare differently in different environments.
Leupold:
The glass is clear, albeit not quite as bright to my eyes as the Steiner. As with the Steiner, I can't really find any CA in the lens but again, i've only shot this against a green, grass background. Throughout the zoom range there is really no loss of fidelity so to speak.
Ultimately, I think I prefer the Steiner glass by a smidge.
TURRETS:
Steiner:
I really like the locks on the Steiner turret but they're probably overkill for PRS matches. A simple return to zero stop would suffice. Having said that, I personally like my gear over built. I had an initial issue with the elevation lock being too difficult to turn resulting in the elevation turret dialing when I didn't want it to. Steiner warrantied this without question. The turrets on the Steiner aren't mushy per say but they are definitively muted versus the Leupold. The Steiner has defined clicks but they are not a glass rod break. More of a wet carrot to use a Geissele trigger analogy. I really like the way that the Steiner turret dials up. The numbers are large and easy to see and it's not going to be easy to get lost in the revolutions. IF you dial elevation frequently, leave the lock off and simply set your zero stop.
Leupold:
I adore the locking elevation turret of the Leupold. It's very easy to use and it works without issue. Setting the zero stop is easy peasy and the raised nub on the top gives you a method to track revolutions so you don't get lost in the sauce when dialing. As mentioned above, the Leupold has more defined clicks than the Steiner. They're more "sharp" or crisp but both optics allow one to dial .1 mil at a time without issue. The capped windage on the Leupold is nice. I don't really want to dial wind but it's not a huge deal to do it if you want to take the time to remove the cap. The PR2 reticle should cover wind holds just fine with no real need to dial.
RETICLE:
Steiner:
I prefer the Steiner reticle on the surface. I find that the center of the Steiner crosshair is much harder to lose than the PR2. Perhaps this is because to my eye, the SCR2 is a more bold etching and may have thicker stadia lines. I really find that the reticle on the SCR2 pops and that it is very easy to find, hold and follow through with. I don't know if this is a combination of the brighter glass and thicker stadia to my eye or if i'm simply subjectively liking it more because my brain said I did. Illumination is present whereas the Leupold does not have it. I don't need or want the illumination for precision shooting but there may come a day where I will hunt with this optic and perhaps i'd want it. There's really no cost increase that WE are aware of given that there is no non illuminated model so if I can have it, id rather have it and not need it.
Leupold:
The PR2 reticle is fantastic. I like the way it's set up but it's not quite as bold as i'd like. It doesn't appear as dark as the SCR reticle. One problem that i'm having is that when there is no contrasting colors, I lose my center section of the crosshairs. I notice this whenever i'm shooting against a dark background. Against light backgrounds it's never an issue but the reverse is not true. I don't lose the SCR reticle the same way I lose the PR2. Yes, both diopters are set up properly. There is no illumination which I don't really care about given the purpose of my MK5HD's.
OVERALL BUILD QUALITY:
Steiner:
This thing is built like an absolute tank. I really do believe I could use it as a club with no issues. The turrets, when locked are super solid and there's zero slop. I like the locking diopter as well as the included scope covers. The zoom throw lever is smooth but not as smooth as my Zeiss LRP S3. I was happy with the way that Steiner handled the warranty issue. I like the matte anodizing. It's a very handsome optic. The only real downside to it is the weight. There is no denying that this thing is a tank. Tanks are heavy and this optic is no exception.
Leupold:
Overall, the Leupold feels like a premium product but there are some minor complaints. My parallax knobs have some weird play in them. I don't quite know why but when you apply pressure to the knob, it has some wiggle to it. It's smooth in its operation and it seems to work just fine so I can't really say I have any real complaint there other than a simple tactile sensation, or academic issue. The turret feel is premium and I have zero issues there. The zoom ring for the magnficiation is smooth but gritty. By this I mean that there are no hitches as you move the ring. However, you can feel resistance that feel's more like grit than a nice viscous, smooth as oil on glass kind of feel. You can kind of hear it "swishing" rather than gliding like the Zeiss LRP s3. It is marginally less smooth than the Steiner.
BRB, duty calls. I'll edit this and add some more thoughts.
EDIT:
So. All in all, I think that I prefer the Steiner if it comes down to bench rest shooting. The reason why I have a MK5 HD 3.6-18 and a 5-25 is because I like the weight of the optic and i'm an FDE slut. If you don't mind the weight of a very heavy optic then the Steiner is an excellent choice and you will really enjoy what it has to offer. If you're trying to shave some ounces off of your platform then the MK5 is the way to go as it is one of the lightest offerings in its glass.
I really do believe that the performance between the two is so similar that it really comes down to reticle preference, weight and price. I think either optic will serve you well provided you are able to qualify what's important to you and choose accordingly. I had more thoughts but I lost that train because of work. Sorry about that. Fire away with any questions you might have. Perhaps I can answer them for you.
Last edited:
Thanks for your review! The more I use my 2 t6xi the more I am impressed! I did end up buying another m7xi 2.9-20 kinda want to see how it stacks up against the t6. I wish they would do the t6 in the old coyote brown color they would sell like wildfire I think. Only 2 complaints about the t6 is the finish and the sample to sample variance of the turrets
Nice. I'd emailed Steiner asking for it at one point but they couldn't provide it. Where did you find one?
Now that’s a reticle that’s just about perfect for that scope!
In my humble opinion that doesn’t mean shit.
I’m planning to put the T6Xi 5-30x56 on a Tikka CTR .308 20” set-up. I’ve had a PST II 5-25x and I didn’t think the magnification was overkill but I am now thinking is 30x too much. What caliber are folks generally using this scope for? I will have desert and land out to 1000-1500 meters routinely.
30x will be there if you need it. You can dial down if you wanted. It’s good to have the versatility of you needed it.
Caliber has nothing to do with scope power.
If it were me, I'd be going for the 3-18 but that's because I'm a sucker for low end FOV. Either will work fine though. Just remember you probably won't be past 20x on those 1000 yard shots due to mirage.
What they said LOL. I do appreciate the larger exit pupil you get from the 56mm Objective - on comparable mag. though.
A bigger scope is always better, until you have to carry it.
I have the Mil. version in stock, NEW sealed. Contact me for details.
Charles Follett
Darn Fine Shot
darnfineshot.com
Ph. 812-917-5653
A bigger scope is always better, until you have to carry it.
I have the Mil. version in stock, NEW sealed. Contact me for details.
Charles Follett
Darn Fine Shot
darnfineshot.com
Ph. 812-917-5653
I find that high mag is very useful for tiny targets (1 MOA and under), colored like the earth, that are <500yds. Like tiny ground squirrels and pdogs. I usually shoot 204.
Whereas PRS targets tend to be larger:
Couple the larger targets with a) mirage issues further exacerbated by increased target distance, and b) the fact that PRS folks are very interested in seeing their misses all leads them to shoot at a lower magnification than one would expect.
This is what I’ve gathered…I might be wrong. Not a competitor.
Wow, only somewhere like the Hide will you find multiple helpful replies within a few hours. I appreciate it.
To all your points, I can definitely see the value of going with a 3-18/4-20 type magnification range on this type of scope. I know for sure I’d find myself using the 14-18x range often. I hadn’t thought about the value of the 20-30x magnification range within 500M at smaller targets. That’s a great point as well.
I think ultimately I’m already familiar and satisfied with the 5-25x so I’ll take the extra 5x at the top end if it ever becomes handy.
To all your points, I can definitely see the value of going with a 3-18/4-20 type magnification range on this type of scope. I know for sure I’d find myself using the 14-18x range often. I hadn’t thought about the value of the 20-30x magnification range within 500M at smaller targets. That’s a great point as well.
I think ultimately I’m already familiar and satisfied with the 5-25x so I’ll take the extra 5x at the top end if it ever becomes handy.
Remember that a scope’s eyebox (and sometimes image quality) typically suffers when one approaches its max magnification.
That’s why you should have cushion around your typical max magnification. For you, 5-25x-ish sounds better than 3-18.
I see no reason NOT to go wit the 5-30 unless weight/size constraints are a concern. The 5-30 will perform optically better at 18x VS the 3-18 at max mag. The 5-30 will likely have degraded image above 25x. Must scopes, even the really expensive alpha level stuff will suffer in the top 10-5% of their max magnification. But, I will say my 7-35 TT is pretty fn clear at 35x!
This ^
I’ve had 3-18x
Now running a 5-25, I find myself around 18-20x most times and that feels like the sweet spot
I prefer the 3-18 mostly because I hunt at closer ranges sometimes. The fov and eye box at 3x is great. And. At 18x I can shoot 1200 yards if I want to. I did how ever find on one of my 3-18x that when I loosen the diopter to adjust it there is play in mine but when you tighten it back up it stops. I just wonder about point of impact shift if you adjust your diopter setting in the field. I haven’t rechecked my zero or checked if my other 3-18 does that. Kinda sucks cuz deer season starts tomarrow and I’m not going to have time to check my zero before so I won’t use the rifle it sits on. Luckily I have a few ready to go
