Makes you wonder if they built it knowing it was a compromise in a number of areas but yet showcasing a heap of improvements in others. Almost like a loss leader prototype before the improvements get incorporated into future models.
New Kahles K328i
- Thread starter gamewarden
- Start date
Makes you wonder if they built it knowing it was a compromise in a number of areas but yet showcasing a heap of improvements in others. Almost like a loss leader prototype before the improvements get incorporated into future models.
I’ve had mine for a few days now. Initial impressions are positive overall. It’s mid range 10-20 is amazing. Glass is very good. Turrets are very good. Edge to edge clarity is great also. The FOV is unlike anything I have experience with. It’s really noticeable. I look forward to comparing it to my ZCOs more in the future. I have mine on an Impact action using the area 419 mid cantilever mount. The eye box tightens up a touch when maxed out, but to be fair that is most optics. I edited photo to where it is going to end up being.
Attachments
Last edited:
Interesting. Doesn’t look like it will mount with traditional rings on a standard bolt action rail. Wow
*edit: just saw a pic of one fitting on a small action using the Area 419 no offset mount with one pic rail to spare. By the look of yours the no offset Area 419 wouldn’t work…
Last edited:
I have it more forward of where I have been running it. I have it as far forward as possible here because I was shooting prone and off a Tripod. That’s also a bad angle picture. But, it would be way too close for comfort for me with traditional rings. I have seen many guys here that have used them as well as non cantilever mounts though. Here is another pic where I have been running it. I am still playing around with it in different positions and fine tuning it. I think an Area 419 regular mount may work well with this optic also, it just would be pretty far forward on the rail. I opted to go with the Area 419 mid cantilever just to be safe. I’m glad I did. It gives me the option if needed.
Attachments
Last edited:
For your consideration
Kahles K328i Review…What is this thing?
Kahles K328i Review…What is this thing?
-Trigger cam isn't compatible
-the ocular bell gets in the way of a 90 degree bolt throw
-mounting requires a cantilever 1-piece
-mag numbers aren't raised
-glass is great
-field of view is ridiculous
-you love the left side windage and top-center parallax
-you wish it was longer and had a 56mm objective
Did I miss anything?
I guess the question I have is, do you think the image would be better with a longer tube and 56 bell?
I find that it balances well on an AR10, but I haven't found a mount that it'll work with for an AR15 yet. (needs extended cantilever and no one is making an extended cantilever w/ 36mm rings)
Sums it up pretty good lol area419 has a good mount for this scope.
ETA: yes at least in theory the optical quality could be better if they didn’t try to make this thing so short. Not saying it’s bad, but as I’ve said if you’re going to be more expensive than ZCO you better compete in more areas than just a better FOV and LSW.
Last edited:
@Covertnoob5 I really like mine and Im using ARC rings on an integral rail bat vampire action. Bolt doesn’t hit the ocular. You’ve seen the pictures of mine. I never got taller rings 
. Perfect mag range for hunting minus the weight. Have you tested the low light against the TT and ZCO? I know you say the scope no one asked for but as a hunter, I love the mag range. It seems like a great crossover scope? My real only complaint is weight. But I’ll take weight if the scope holds up.
. Perfect mag range for hunting minus the weight. Have you tested the low light against the TT and ZCO? I know you say the scope no one asked for but as a hunter, I love the mag range. It seems like a great crossover scope? My real only complaint is weight. But I’ll take weight if the scope holds up.
Good to see it’s made sense to somebody@Covertnoob5 I really like mine and Im using ARC rings on an integral rail bat vampire action. Bolt doesn’t hit the ocular. You’ve seen the pictures of mine. I never got taller rings
I agree, the weight is what puts it off for crossover (that and 36mm tube doesn't help either); however, many consider the Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20x50 a "great" crossover scope, and with the DT II+ turrets (I wouldn't get a Schmidt without them) this scope approaches 34oz, the Kahles is just under 3oz more, not a massive difference... plus even at 3.5x the Kahles has better FOV than the Schmidt at 3x, in fact, the Kahles has wider FOV than the NF NX8 2.5-20x50 (another popular crossover design). If comparing FOV, the Kahles falls in line more with many 2.5x scopes making this much more compelling for crossover and clipon use. The greatest drawbacks are the aforementioned weight and the price, maybe I'm remembering wrong but I thought this scope was "cheaper" a few months back, seems like price has gone up for it at EO; that along with the fact that traditionally Kahles struggles a bit with resale price, often going for quite a bit lower than street price in order to sell - hoping this new 3.5-28x50 will buck that trend, need to find a good deal on a Kahles cert as this scope is on my radar for 2025 review...@Covertnoob5 I really like mine and Im using ARC rings on an integral rail bat vampire action. Bolt doesn’t hit the ocular. You’ve seen the pictures of mine. I never got taller rings
IMHO, having looked through one next to a ZCO527, no one looking hard at a scope like this really gives a shit about going down to 3.5x and how short/compact it is. Its FOV is massive and impressive, facts. But for what it costs, it might just end up selling more ZCOs, because looking through both back to back, the glass and DOF aren't there, and its build quality and durability are questionable when compared to what it's priced up against.
At ~$3K it'd be hard to pass on, up against a Razor G3 with similar glass and getting that giant FOV, but at the $4K mark... IDK.
At ~$3K it'd be hard to pass on, up against a Razor G3 with similar glass and getting that giant FOV, but at the $4K mark... IDK.
Last edited:
I'm cautiously optimistic that the Geissele ZCO 36mm mount has a long enough cantilever on it to run on a small frame AR.
Great observations. Thank you @CK1.0.
Interestingly:
EuroOptic lists the Kahles 3-28x FOV at 100 yards at 28x to be 5.4 feet.
EuroOptic lists the USO Foundation 5-25x FOV at 100 yards at 25x to be 5.2 feet.
With that being said, more FOV in order to do what?
Spot impacts better? (This is why I own two USO FDNs.)
Engage multiple targets?
Brag about it?
-Stan
It just might come down to one's taste... tomato, tomaaaahto sort of thing?
Personally, I’m not a “FOV is everything” type… I tend to mainly focus on the center and where my target is mostly, so I find myself pretty happy behind just about everything (even the Mk4/5HDS that the internet says is supposed to be like looking through a straw lol).
ETA: Part of that might be because I always shoot with both eyes open, and the biggest thing I think extra FOV might help some guys with is scanning for targets... but my brain switches over automatically to use my other eye to help scan and get me in the ballpark, and then turns it off when I go back to looking through the scope, so IDK, it probably just comes down to the individual, and a larger FOV might help some guys more than it does me.
That said, in the words of the great Yngwie Malmsteen - “More is more”, and the K328i does feel really nice to get behind because the FOV is closer to what one might expect from binos than a scope, and that is really cool.
I just don’t know if the crazy FOV it has makes up for everything else… as someone who’s relatively new to “alpha glass”, every time I get behind my ZCO I’m blown away and I'm like “Wow” still (sometimes it looks like I’m downrange and can reach out and touch the plates if I wanted to). While, besides the huge wow factor its FOV delivers, the Kahles’ image didn’t give me the same warm and fuzzies as far as its glass is concerned, and IMHO, for what it costs, I think it probably should, because I think IQ and DOF matter more than FOV (YMMV).
IDK about USOs, but some of the numbers out there don’t really tell the whole truth/story. From what I understand, lots of European-made scopes get a wider FOV over there and are limited/neutered for the US market (as is the case with ZCOs), and seems sometimes the numbers don’t always correlate with what we actually get over here (which sucks).
Last edited:
I wanted to add sort of a "don't get me wrong" caveat...
I'm 100% with @Covertnoob5 and his take, in that whoever at Kahles decided to go with a 50mm objective and pushed the compact size and low 3.5x over going with a proper/legit 56mm objective should probably be punched in the face repeatedly (and maybe save some juice for the MFer who picked the price point too).
The K328i's FOV is almost shockingly awesome, IMHO it's just the current ill-conceived package and price (and none of us have $300-400 36mm cantilever mounts lying around) that keep it from being a real game-changer. But, if/when they release a proper 56mm objective model, say a 5-40x56 or 6-48x56... with either glass that matches the ZCOs, or... a lower price point nearer the RG3/NF zone... look the fuck out.
I'm 100% with @Covertnoob5 and his take, in that whoever at Kahles decided to go with a 50mm objective and pushed the compact size and low 3.5x over going with a proper/legit 56mm objective should probably be punched in the face repeatedly (and maybe save some juice for the MFer who picked the price point too).
The K328i's FOV is almost shockingly awesome, IMHO it's just the current ill-conceived package and price (and none of us have $300-400 36mm cantilever mounts lying around) that keep it from being a real game-changer. But, if/when they release a proper 56mm objective model, say a 5-40x56 or 6-48x56... with either glass that matches the ZCOs, or... a lower price point nearer the RG3/NF zone... look the fuck out.
Last edited:
What is the general consensus on the illumination? Is everyone else seeing some of the illumination showing up at the 4 o'clock position?...it goes out of the FOV at roughly 4-power. Also, are the numbers in the reticles partially illuminated for everyone? This is a bit distracting to me...mainly the numbers being partially illuminated.
In use on the range or indoors in your basement? Just generally speaking reticle illumination bleed looks a lot worse indoors than it does outside, even in particularly overcast conditions.
I will guess that the magnification range goes from “Unusable” to “Too Far to Walk To.”
-Stan
Last edited:
You're confusing patents with copyrights and trademarks, not the same thing. Swarovski didn't create wide angle viewing technology so they can't really patent it, and that's why they had to patent a spec vs a technology. You can only patent novel and non-obvious technologies, which wide-angle lens technology doesn't fall under and why they rely on financial limitations of their competitors to essentially enforce it for them.I love how everyone on here gets worked up into a frenzy of Karens over something as stupid as a company patenting something they created. Music gets patented every single day…Same with movies, logos, designs, guns, scopes, labels, ammo, brand names, etc... Hell, Harley Davidson patented their “sound” (45° V-twin), as stupid as that is. I’m surprised y’all aren’t bitching about that…
I'm just curious what you mean by "rely on financial limitationsof their competitorsto enforce it for them"?
I think he meant that Swarovski’s competitors don’t have the financial resources to litigate the patent therefore their individual poverty enforces the patent.
Exactly what he said above. They know most competitors can't afford a lengthy legal battle to challenge the patent so it essentially enforces itself.
