I am looking to get a LPVO for my 16" 5.56mm AR and have settled between the March 1-10 shorty and the Kahles K18i-2. I know that these optics are kind of comparing apples to oranges as the March is a dual focal plane while the Kahles is a SFP, but I've never used a DFP reticle before so I am trying to determine if it is right for my use case. This AR is my do all/SHTF rifle with the possibility of being used in a 3 gun match, so I am trying to match the best optic for the role. I know both Kahles and March have excellent glass, and the Kahles was the top choice for awhile for 3 gun scopes. I do like the idea of the versatility of the DFP reticle and extra magnification of the March, but I'm not sure if that comes with too many compromises that detract from its usability. Any feedback on these two scope choices?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes LPVO Comparison: March Shorty 1-10x vs Kahles K18i-2 1-8x
- Thread starter TheVolunteers
- Start date
Hey Doug, I’m not that familiar with SAI. I realize they’ve been around a while and out of Nova Scotia. Do you know where the scopes are made and much about the glass they use? Thanks.
SAI 10 1-10
This has not been posted yet has it? https://www.flipsnack.com/FAC7E8DD75E/ati-2025-catalog/full-view.html
www.snipershide.com
It was also shown on Armament's instagram from their range day.
Honestly…. The 1.5-15 dual focal plane March is a bad little optic! If I wanted an all around optic for an ar platform that’s what I’d have on my rifle no question about it.
1.5-15 slightly larger than 1-10 offering with dual focus so the SFP is a constant crosshair with fiber dot, the FFP is a secondary reticle that has accurate sub tensions at all distances. March is the ONLY ones doing that.
1.5-15 slightly larger than 1-10 offering with dual focus so the SFP is a constant crosshair with fiber dot, the FFP is a secondary reticle that has accurate sub tensions at all distances. March is the ONLY ones doing that.
I really like the 1.5-15 as an all purpose type optic.
Schmidt & Bender also offers a DFP reticle in their Short Dot
Any comparisons of the glass between the March and the Kahles? It seems that on paper the March wins for more versatility of magnification range, parallax adjustment, and reticle usability, while the Kahles wins for FOV. I'm leaning towards the March but not sure if the extra FOV of the Kahles tips the scales?
I'll keep on eye on the SAI scope as well, never even heard of them until this thread.
I'll keep on eye on the SAI scope as well, never even heard of them until this thread.
They have a fiber dot backed by a ffp adjustable reticle I am not aware of them having 2 reticle systems in the optic that’s not the same thing. The fiber dot with a single reticle versus a scope that actually has two aligned reticles and a fiber dot one being ffp one being sfp
The march is going to have glass second to none, the increased FOV also has an effect on eyebox and relief they are directly related. With it also being a 30mm versus 34mm on the march it’s likely to be noticeable on the ease to get behind. They don’t publish some of the specs I’d directly compare for a better idea id have to calculate them.
They are all using a fiber dot system and would be considered day time bright. I don’t know for sure on the kahles I haven’t seen it in person.
I can attest the march is bright and the S&B is also a bright dot.
Man that’s my favorite scope from a AR platform perspective they little scope has all the horsepower to truly do it all.
Last edited:
I am relatively certain Short Dot has IMT’s phase grating reticle in the SFP and a conventional etched reticle in the FFP. There are two separate illuminators for the two reticles.
March DFP designs (1-10x24 and 1.5-15x42) have a fiber illuminated SFP reticle and a non-illuminated tree in the FFP.
Kahles reticle in the K18-2 is day bright. I am not 100% sure which reticle illumination method they use, but they do their in very clever light management systems.
ILya
I’ll check again but either way if they are using some of the same things good on them. It’s a very cool design and incredibly hard to get accomplished. Is this the model you’re referring to? I thought it was a flash for and then had a ffp reticle.
I saw you at shot show stopping by the March booth sorry I couldn’t say hello I was jammed up with questions about the PRS scope.
Attachments
Last edited:
This is the scope i am referring to https://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/...R-1cm-cw-ST-MTC-LT-ST-ZC-LT/683-811-44E-K1-H1
ILya
IQ?? Not according to the view through the March 1.5-15 in the C_Does thread on IVPO's, nor in my March 1-10 shorty DFP, even there a little bit in the 5-42 I had. Not bad the lower the mag is but not great the higher the mag is.
My PRS model is absolutely outstanding in the 5-43 Gen 2 and has been compared to ZCO and Theta by several shooters and they all agreed it’s top tier class
In what criteria are you saying it was far from good? Was it a tunneling issue, CA presence, mirage? What’s the basis for that statement?
Also what other scope did you compare it along side at 38x, it’s easy to say man it looked worse at 38x from a mirage perspective but every scope would relative to the same scope at 20x. While tunneling can occur, glass clarity doesn’t actually all of a sudden get worse because you hit a magnification number. I’m curious what you encountered, they did improve some things in the gen 2 and its also a completely different tracking system used in the majesta.
Good question.
The higher the mag gets on high magnification scopes the dimmer it'll get and the crispness of the IQ begins to diminish by whatever the optics will pull off. For example even my old Pentax PF100/100mm objective spotter did this.
Another example, have you looked through the older March 8-80's? I hate looking through these at 80x.
So what I mean for my 5-42, in my eyes view, is the IQ was awesome below 20x, just fine at 25x, meh at 30x, not good by 35x, absolutely not good above 38x, and poor at 42x, yes I mean Tasco poor, or to my point being both both dim and blurry. My intent was to use higher magnification most of the time, nope didn't work out at all.
When I got this 5-42 I hadn't sold my older March FFP 5-40 yet so I compared them. The IQ in the older scope was not as good at 20x, about even at 35x, and well ahead of the 5-42 at 40x.
I couldn't say anything about the G2's or Majesta's because I haven't looked through them but I'd like to.
I'm 64 years old so my eyes aren't great but I have a Athlon Ares ETR 15-60 that has far and away better IQ at 40x than than that 5-42 had on the same magnification.
I've also looked through a couple March HM 10-60's and they had superior IQ than the ETR does, though not much.
Honestly I feel March needs to stop the super high mag ratio and super compact stuff and concentrate on providing the best IQ out there because otherwise their scopes are very well built.
You should check out the TT 7-35x56, they sprinkled some kind of pixie dust on this optic as it blew me away with how much it could resolve and how bright it was at 35x, I talk about it more in my review here which reminds me I need to post a version to the Hide, just too many things going on.
https://opticsthoughts.com/?p=3176
I do like the March 1.5-15x42 FFP with DFP reticle a lot, but I can see where some might complain about IQ above 10x, for me it's fine, but for someone coming from a good 3-15 or 4-16 might be a bit disappointed, I think it is more about setting expectations, this is a 10x erector MPVO, something unique to the market and there is not competition for it and comparing it to a good 5x erector scope is a bit unfair, almost always the lower erector scope is going to perform better but it's also limited in it's magnification range so you have to decide what is most important to you.
I agree, March has the engineering prowess to make a scope that is on the same level as TT and ZCO, but their desire to make shorter scopes using high erectors has compromises which does affect overall performance. That being said, the new 5-42x56 Gen2 is very impressive with how well they corrected the soft periphery (edge to edge sharpness) and in that 10-20x Goldilocks range I would even put it on par with TT, ZCO and Schmidt but at higher magnifications I think the others perform better. My desire is to get the Kahles K540i (another scope where they didn't need to push the erector so far), the March 5-42x56 Gen2 and the ZCO 8-40x56 to compare with the TT 7-35 this year, time and funds allowing.
But we are deviating far from the title of this thread which is basically LPVO's.
I did a short review a few years back you might find helpful:
Rifle Scopes - LPVO Evaluation Vortex Gen III 1-10 - March Shorty 1-10 - ATI SAI 6 1-6
A crashed hard drive and another review has caused me to be delayed in providing more information on the 3 LPVO's that I had in hand last April. In December I ordered the Vortex Razor Gen III 1-10x24 in MOA BDC and after what seemed like forever it finally arrived in April. I bought my DT MDRx...
www.snipershide.com
I could go explain and work through all the claims here but the reality is it won’t change anything it sounds like your eyes don’t like March product. I’ve looked through and shot just about every design on the market in high end offering and the 5-42x glass is outstanding and generally speaking March is highly regarded as some of the best glass in the market. They are the scope to beat on fclass at 80x for the top competitors.
The Athlon you are referring to is built by LOW optics and actually isn’t anywhere close to the same level of glass quality so that’s a pretty wild claim in general. In fact many optics on the market have march designs behind them tailored to price points for oems produced through LOW. But to each their own… I can only attest to what I have seen as the designer of the FML-WBR reticle and the force behind the PRS gen 2 offering. I can say some of the best shooters in the country have handedly looked through the optic and been very impressed by its performance and these same guys shoot ZCOs and Thetas.
The Athlon he is referring to is a Chinese design. The closest it got to Japan was while on a boat heading to the US. It is a very nice scope for the money, but I do not think it is in the same league as the alphas.
The way March traditionally optimizes their designs works for some people and does not work as well for others. They lean a little more toward resolution than contrast and optimal eye position within the eyebox also makes a difference.
That having been said, I have two Gen1 5-42x56 March scopes and have looked at the Gen2, though not super thoroughly. Gen2 cleans up the edges and off axis performance. On-axis (or relatively close to it) and in the center of the field Gen1 and Gen2 looked pretty similar to me.
March 5-42x is one of the higher performing high magnification FFP designs out there. Of the ones I have seen, the only one with a clear side-by-side edge is the 7-35x Tangent. The biggest difference in this case between Tangent and everyone else is that Tangent somehow manages to get up to 35x without virtually no contrast degradation. From an optical design perspective, it is quite mind boggling. I know who did the optical system and he should really be proud.
March does have clearly visible contrast degradation on high mags (similarly to everyone but Tangent), but retains resolution extremely well. The feel of the image through the March is very different because of the very shallow depth of field. That same shallow depth of field is what makes March, in my eyes, the best scope out there for shooting paper.
Later this year, I plan to carefully examine the FFP version of S&B 10-60x, since I am very curious how it will stack up.
The Kahles is a little brighter than the S&B Short dot. I have both.
The Kahles is what you pick if you care about your view on 1x. In fact, it is the very best LPVO to pick if 1x view is your main concern. Kahles desperately needs to turn this into a FFP model with the 3GR reticle and numbered mils. You would have...buyers.
The S&B Dual focal CC short dot is still overall my favorite LPVO if cost is of zero concern. I don't think it can be beat in terms of feature set and glass. It's ability to handle direct and/or scattered light sources is uncanny.
I have not had any real world experience with the March DFP 1-10.
The Kahles is what you pick if you care about your view on 1x. In fact, it is the very best LPVO to pick if 1x view is your main concern. Kahles desperately needs to turn this into a FFP model with the 3GR reticle and numbered mils. You would have...buyers.
The S&B Dual focal CC short dot is still overall my favorite LPVO if cost is of zero concern. I don't think it can be beat in terms of feature set and glass. It's ability to handle direct and/or scattered light sources is uncanny.
I have not had any real world experience with the March DFP 1-10.
Regarding LPVO's, I have a few. I cannot comment on the March as I have no experience with it. I do have a Kahles K16i, 1-6x LPVO. The clarity of the glass is superb. Mine is on a Safari rifle that I am taking to Africa this year and while testing the capability of the system at the range recently, I shot a group at a std sized IPSC steel plate at 400y just for shits and giggles. That is well beyond the normal envelope that I would be hunting within. Since 6x is not much at that distance, I used the angle between the head and right shoulder of the plate as an aiming reference and aimed just below this point. All three shots struck the plate in the right shoulder forming a group of about 1.5". Perhaps a fluke, but the recoil of the big magnum from the bench is sufficient to discourage such shooting much, so I did not try to repeat the performance, lol. The scope while clear was not clear enough to see the impact points at the time. All I could see was the movement of the plate on impact. I did not realize how tight the group was until, I drove down range to pull my paper tgts. I will mainly be hunting Cape Buffalo at ranges of 100-1y and plains game out to about 200y. It is quite adequate for that application. The reticle allows for good hold over for my uses at 6x.
In addition, I have an Arken LP-8, 1-8x LPVO, that is currently mounted on a Fierce Firearms CT Edge in 7mm/08. It is fantastic for the $ and every bit within 90% of the clarity of the Kahles for 1/10th the price. In fact the only times, I can tell the difference is at full power looking at very long range tgts. For normal uses, they are near equals. The KL Box reticle is useful and while it took me a while to understand it, I would have no issues using it now. I have used it coyote hunting at ranges out to 400y+ and like it enough, that I purchased another for my SHTF rifle. For me, I like the reticle of the K16i over the K18i and would only suggest that you look at and handle both before choosing. My 2cents.
Three pics below: 1.) 3sh, 400y group with ER Shaw 375HH Mag with Barnes 300g TSX ammo. 2.) ER Shaw Custom 375HH, w/Kahles K16i, 3.) CT Edge 7mm/08 with Arken LPVO.
In addition, I have an Arken LP-8, 1-8x LPVO, that is currently mounted on a Fierce Firearms CT Edge in 7mm/08. It is fantastic for the $ and every bit within 90% of the clarity of the Kahles for 1/10th the price. In fact the only times, I can tell the difference is at full power looking at very long range tgts. For normal uses, they are near equals. The KL Box reticle is useful and while it took me a while to understand it, I would have no issues using it now. I have used it coyote hunting at ranges out to 400y+ and like it enough, that I purchased another for my SHTF rifle. For me, I like the reticle of the K16i over the K18i and would only suggest that you look at and handle both before choosing. My 2cents.
Three pics below: 1.) 3sh, 400y group with ER Shaw 375HH Mag with Barnes 300g TSX ammo. 2.) ER Shaw Custom 375HH, w/Kahles K16i, 3.) CT Edge 7mm/08 with Arken LPVO.
Yes but because it's only 8x-10x it's not bad. One time when shooting somewhat into the sun it was hard to concentrate on the white painted steel against a black cinder background at 1143Y. It was noticeably more pleasant shooting at the same steel using my Athlon Helos 2-12.
Both scopes lacking sunshades which would have helped.
Please don't take my comments as attacking March. I still own two of them which I like for various reasons. But nothing is perfect, right?!
I'm not lying or making bold claims, instead I'm telling exactly what I saw.
Like I mentioned, and admitted, to me the HM 10-60's I looked through have superb IQ which is superior to that ETR 15-60. Also even though the ETR is a third the price it still has great IQ. Darn close to my S&B 5-25 and my Genesis which has the best IQ of my scopes.
I can only imagine the Majesta's are even nicer than the older M 10-60 so good on March for that.
My 5-42 was a G1 and I haven't looked through the G2 but obviously by what's been mentioned the IQ has been improved.
You should check out the TT 7-35x56, they sprinkled some kind of pixie dust on this optic as it blew me away with how much it could resolve and how bright it was at 35x, I talk about it more in my review here which reminds me I need to post a version to the Hide, just too many things going on.
https://opticsthoughts.com/?p=3176
I do like the March 1.5-15x42 FFP with DFP reticle a lot, but I can see where some might complain about IQ above 10x, for me it's fine, but for someone coming from a good 3-15 or 4-16 might be a bit disappointed, I think it is more about setting expectations, this is a 10x erector MPVO, something unique to the market and there is not competition for it and comparing it to a good 5x erector scope is a bit unfair, almost always the lower erector scope is going to perform better but it's also limited in it's magnification range so you have to decide what is most important to you.
I agree, March has the engineering prowess to make a scope that is on the same level as TT and ZCO, but their desire to make shorter scopes using high erectors has compromises which does affect overall performance. That being said, the new 5-42x56 Gen2 is very impressive with how well they corrected the soft periphery (edge to edge sharpness) and in that 10-20x Goldilocks range I would even put it on par with TT, ZCO and Schmidt but at higher magnifications I think the others perform better. My desire is to get the Kahles K540i (another scope where they didn't need to push the erector so far), the March 5-42x56 Gen2 and the ZCO 8-40x56 to compare with the TT 7-35 this year, time and funds allowing.
But we are deviating far from the title of this thread which is basically LPVO's.
I did a short review a few years back you might find helpful:
Rifle Scopes - LPVO Evaluation Vortex Gen III 1-10 - March Shorty 1-10 - ATI SAI 6 1-6
A crashed hard drive and another review has caused me to be delayed in providing more information on the 3 LPVO's that I had in hand last April. In December I ordered the Vortex Razor Gen III 1-10x24 in MOA BDC and after what seemed like forever it finally arrived in April. I bought my DT MDRx...
I'm envisioning;
#1 that the TT 7-35 could be voted on to have the best IQ of any FFP at 35x!
#2 but how nice would it have been at 40x, or 45x, or higher. Or to my point how much magnification would it still pull off that stellar IQ.
Would I like one, heck yeah I would!!!!
If my XRP cryto takes off like I'm hoping I might find that out someday. If not I might be selling stuff instead, LOL!
I really wanted that M 1.5-15 at first but..... and I certainly can see others wanting or needing it for their use case.
There isn't another LPVO on the market that I know of which works for my use case like the M 1-10 DFP shorty does so I kept it in spite of......
Looking forward to your reviews and thanks to you and DLO for your contributions to the community.
This has all been really helpful information, appreciate all the responses. Looking more at the March 1-10, I know they originally released the DFP model with a 30/33 mount, then later released a 34mm model with shuriken turrets. Is the locking turrets and more universal mounting options worth the upgrade? I just ask because the first generation 30/33 model is more available on the second hand market for better deals.
Similar threads
