Exactly this
What one person sees another doesn’t
That why I don’t get into these reviews
Folks talking about 1/64th of an inch?
Give me a fucking break
Rifle Scopes New for 2025, the Kahles K540i
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
What one person sees another doesn’t
That why I don’t get into these reviews
Folks talking about 1/64th of an inch?
Give me a fucking break
Every inch matters, ask your wife.
That’s what I’m saying. How does one notice a fisheye effect in 1/64” of edge real estate. Did you notice any?
Yes because no scope or bino review ever mentions edge to edge clarity. 
If seeing a dirty dishwater ring around the image in your scope doesn't bother, more power to you. For the rest of us paying retail Kahles can fix that stupid shit.
If seeing a dirty dishwater ring around the image in your scope doesn't bother, more power to you. For the rest of us paying retail Kahles can fix that stupid shit.
They don’t, it’s just saying something negative to say something negative.
There absolutely nothing wrong with these scopes, look too you tube and see what those guys like X ring, area 419 are saying
No, I'm not. Maybe everyone else received a perfect unit. But I very seriously doubt it.
Either way don't accuse me of some petty shit for being honest. If you want to simp or schill for Kahles that is your perogative but don't criticize for calling out a very clear defect in the design of these products.
@jthor, your comment is on point. I did not even realize the distortion was there until later in the day when I started to look at the entire glass from edge to edge.
@918v, you are right, it's almost unperceivable. I noticed it when closely examining the edges and moving the scope right to left across a white target against a dark background.
Another item that came to mind is the windage turret click spacing, which is tighter than I would like.
@918v, you are right, it's almost unperceivable. I noticed it when closely examining the edges and moving the scope right to left across a white target against a dark background.
Another item that came to mind is the windage turret click spacing, which is tighter than I would like.
No offense boss, but you just listed a dealer and a guy who relies on companies sending him stuff as your 'non-biased' support for your argument.
I have no dog in either side of the fight, so I could care less (and I don't like or hate Kahles). I'm just pointing out that there is a little more potential for bias in your two champions.
Have a good one.
I think some people really, really, really like a flat field view. Meaning there is no drop off of quality of an image as you go from center to edge.
You see this debated on camera forums all of the time. Especially on wide angle lenses.
Me? I don’t mind some image degradation as you move to the edge of an image. In photography, in many instances I actually prefer it as the sharper center draws the eye in. I believe it’s called “field curvature” in photography, at least. Not sure what the terminology is for riflescopes.
Imagine the focused image as a dome vs a flat field. That’s what I’m talking about.
Swaro (who owns Kahles) is known for their flat-field approach in binos. I don’t like the effect, although it is stunning. I prefer the typical Zeiss or Leica bino effect, which is more fuzzy towards the edges. In tree cover, for example, the Swaros can confuse the eye as too much is in focus. You can lose where you are, depth perception-wise.
It boils down to taste and expectations.
Anyway, I think March also has this effect with their wide angle eyepieces. It would seem to be a natural optical byproduct of wider and wider angle eyepieces, unless it works quite differently here than in photography (I know lots of opto-mechanical phenomena behave differently in riflescopes and cannot be directly compared to photo lenses).
Some are very picky about this issue. Some are not. Some think it’s a flaw, some think it is not. I know in photography it requires rather exceedingly expensive solutions to get that flat focus effect (edit: in wide angle lenses).
You see this debated on camera forums all of the time. Especially on wide angle lenses.
Me? I don’t mind some image degradation as you move to the edge of an image. In photography, in many instances I actually prefer it as the sharper center draws the eye in. I believe it’s called “field curvature” in photography, at least. Not sure what the terminology is for riflescopes.
Imagine the focused image as a dome vs a flat field. That’s what I’m talking about.
Swaro (who owns Kahles) is known for their flat-field approach in binos. I don’t like the effect, although it is stunning. I prefer the typical Zeiss or Leica bino effect, which is more fuzzy towards the edges. In tree cover, for example, the Swaros can confuse the eye as too much is in focus. You can lose where you are, depth perception-wise.
It boils down to taste and expectations.
Anyway, I think March also has this effect with their wide angle eyepieces. It would seem to be a natural optical byproduct of wider and wider angle eyepieces, unless it works quite differently here than in photography (I know lots of opto-mechanical phenomena behave differently in riflescopes and cannot be directly compared to photo lenses).
Some are very picky about this issue. Some are not. Some think it’s a flaw, some think it is not. I know in photography it requires rather exceedingly expensive solutions to get that flat focus effect (edit: in wide angle lenses).
Last edited:
I could care less about that last 5% of the image edge. I've used most of the top scopes, spotters, and binos and if I look hard enough I will perceive some image degradation on the edge of pretty much all of them. Unless that distortion is excessive, its simply not a quality I care about in optics. The only time my eyes are that close to the edge is if I'm looking for this very thing.
Additionally, anytime I read someones review claiming "perfect edge-to-edge clarity" or something like that, I basically discount their opinion of that optic.
Additionally, anytime I read someones review claiming "perfect edge-to-edge clarity" or something like that, I basically discount their opinion of that optic.
Last edited:
P.S. I hate Swaro due to #FOVgate, but I still sorta stick up for them here.
Even though I shouldn't (fuckers).
Even though I shouldn't (fuckers).
Spoiler alert
They really liked the Kahles in blind testing of glass quality, and field of view was a big part of that. They show the view through the scope and have circles for where Leupold and Vortex stop.
There is a complete discussion on this test here for more context. https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...025-big-boy-precision-optic-shootout.7250212/
For the 525 scopes the DLR had a better FOV and 10 Mil rev turret.
Nowadays on the 328 and 540, the DLR is just the 10 Mil rev turret. The FOV with these is the same between DLR and non-DLR.
Last edited:
Thanks, guys. I was looking and looking and could not figure out the difference. So the non-DLR is 15 mil per revolution turrets?
And the 10mil is considered better because it is easier to keep track of?
For PRS, wouldn't pretty much everything fit within 15 mils (say with a 6mm GT) so that one would not even go beyond one revolution with the 15 mils turret?
Please help me understand the pros and cons, here.
I do not have the same level of experience with different scopes and distances that some of you have. I have only been out to 1200 yards once, and my local match never goes beyond 600 (although I am going to be doing more PRS one day matches soon, which will probably be out to 1200).
I shoot with a Steiner T6Xi scope right now, which, if memory serves as I am sitting here, is 12 mils (not sure), but once you go 120 clicks on the turret, the numbers are in windows and automatically change so you never get lost when dialing. That is, at the second revolution, the numbers in the windows are different. 26 mils of total travel.
Here, if this does not come up at the right time, start around 5:20
So could somebody tell me the pros and cons of DLR v. non-DLR turret, now that I know what this means on the Kahles? Thank you in advance for taking the time.
And the 10mil is considered better because it is easier to keep track of?
For PRS, wouldn't pretty much everything fit within 15 mils (say with a 6mm GT) so that one would not even go beyond one revolution with the 15 mils turret?
Please help me understand the pros and cons, here.
I do not have the same level of experience with different scopes and distances that some of you have. I have only been out to 1200 yards once, and my local match never goes beyond 600 (although I am going to be doing more PRS one day matches soon, which will probably be out to 1200).
I shoot with a Steiner T6Xi scope right now, which, if memory serves as I am sitting here, is 12 mils (not sure), but once you go 120 clicks on the turret, the numbers are in windows and automatically change so you never get lost when dialing. That is, at the second revolution, the numbers in the windows are different. 26 mils of total travel.
Here, if this does not come up at the right time, start around 5:20
So could somebody tell me the pros and cons of DLR v. non-DLR turret, now that I know what this means on the Kahles? Thank you in advance for taking the time.
10 mil per rev gives more spacing between each .1 mil mark on the turret. More space to write once you put a speed turret sticker on the elevation turret and easier to read/easier on the eyes.
Are you talking about this? Speed turret sticker?
backfireshop.com
Turret Tags
Turret Tags by Backfire are quick-adjust yardage stickers for any scope. Simply apply the stickers to your scope to mark the correct yardage for any shot, then use the clear strip to lock the tags onto your scope so they don’t get bumped off during a hunt. The stickers are waterproof and...
backfireshop.com
You should go with the 10MIL DLR and turret tape as suggested. - Richard
Definitely some personal preference, but I have 20/15 vision, and I would go 10/mil DLR. The 15 mil turrets on my k525i were second only to my 6 mil tangent in terms of "clickiness", but spacing was pretty tight on the 15 mil version. 10 mil would be much preferable, especially since it sounds like you will only go into the second rev occasionally.
As said above, turret tape could also increase visibility. I have the IDTS tape on 15 mil ZCOs, and prefer that to the factory turret markings.
More like thisAre you talking about this? Speed turret sticker?
Turret Tags
Turret Tags by Backfire are quick-adjust yardage stickers for any scope. Simply apply the stickers to your scope to mark the correct yardage for any shot, then use the clear strip to lock the tags onto your scope so they don’t get bumped off during a hunt. The stickers are waterproof and...
https://idts-dryfire.com/product/ballistic-tape/
More in stock! - Richard
Kahles K540i 5-40x56 DLR CCW SKMR4+ w-left Windage $4,599.00
https://cstactical.com/kahles-k540i-5-40x56-dlr-ccw-skmr4-10721/
Kahles K540i 5-40x56 DLR CCW SKMR4+ w-left Windage $4,599.00
https://cstactical.com/kahles-k540i-5-40x56-dlr-ccw-skmr4-10721/
Does the wide field of view help in locating targets?
We have all had it happen. You think you are lined up with the target. You set the rifle down. It appears to be looking that general direction, so you look through the scope, and, what the hell? Where is it? LOL.
I was thinking a wider field of view would help in that situation.
We have all had it happen. You think you are lined up with the target. You set the rifle down. It appears to be looking that general direction, so you look through the scope, and, what the hell? Where is it? LOL.
I was thinking a wider field of view would help in that situation.
It absolutely can help! I think you answered your own question
Think of it this way - you have scope A and scope B. Scope A has a 22° AFOV and at 20x you can see 9.4 mils from center to edge and then you have Scope B which has 26° AFOV and you can see 13.7 mils from center to edge - clearly there is an advantage with the scope that has greater FOV (you can see more at the same magnification). Sure, you can bring down the magnification on Scope A to "see more" but now you've lost the magnification which could help with PID in trying to identify whether or not that shape at 817 yards is a rock or a steel plate; so with Scope A you are going back and forth, back and forth... low mag, increase mag and back to low mag... but with scope B you are not flipping back and forth nearly as much.
Received my K540i LSW w/ SKMR+ today, put it next to buddy's ZCO 840 @ Gravestone Alpha range & went back and forth for 15 minutes @ 20x & 25x. Full sunlight, sun overhead but behind plates (downrange is due south) ... as @Sprayed99 said, you're really splitting hairs between the two. In my unprofessional opinion, any difference in IQ in good lighting conditions is moot. I went to the range fully prepared to sell the K540i without mounting it if I detected even the slightest IQ superiority in the ZCO 840. Even though I prefer warmer glass and think the MPCT1x is the best reticle currently available, I'll be keeping the K540i.
FOV is nuts, DOF is very forgiving, eyebox is great, the elevation turret is excellent & windage turret is good, illumination of the reticle is superb. Kahles' patented windage "Twist Guard" is absolutely terrible, it's unequivocally garbage and I'm in disbelief. Tasco-tier shit, WTF Kahles.
Resolution of fine details was essentially identical. I can confidently say the Kahles did not out-resolve the ZCO with regard to fine details on shadowed objects. That said, I'll have to spend more time with both to determine if that holds true or the ZCO is capable of out-resolving the Kahles, particularly in adverse lighting conditions. Color was pretty comparable, Kahles being slightly brighter and ZCO being slightly warmer. Mirage looked identical to my eyes (although wind was 15-35mph, so I'll revisit mirage). MPCT1x > SKMR+.
Looking forward to actual reviews by @Covertnoob5 and @Glassaholic
FOV is nuts, DOF is very forgiving, eyebox is great, the elevation turret is excellent & windage turret is good, illumination of the reticle is superb. Kahles' patented windage "Twist Guard" is absolutely terrible, it's unequivocally garbage and I'm in disbelief. Tasco-tier shit, WTF Kahles.
Resolution of fine details was essentially identical. I can confidently say the Kahles did not out-resolve the ZCO with regard to fine details on shadowed objects. That said, I'll have to spend more time with both to determine if that holds true or the ZCO is capable of out-resolving the Kahles, particularly in adverse lighting conditions. Color was pretty comparable, Kahles being slightly brighter and ZCO being slightly warmer. Mirage looked identical to my eyes (although wind was 15-35mph, so I'll revisit mirage). MPCT1x > SKMR+.
Looking forward to actual reviews by @Covertnoob5 and @Glassaholic
Thanks for this. I’m definitely excited to review them side by side as well. Initial handling of the 540 left me feeling very positive about it.
I did, but didn't spend enough time to comment fairly. You can see the IQ beginning to fall off just before 30x & really drop off @ 35x, and the eyebox tightens up somewhere just before 35x on the K540i. I actually started the K540i thinking I was somewhere around 24x, after a minute I realized I was actually @ around 30x, the FOV is just huge.
I failed to mention my prior comments were related to comparisons @ 500-800 yards only. We'll have them both out @ a regional match Sunday, I'll aim to spend more time with them side-by-side afterwards.
I have my LOP @ 13 7/8", shorter guys will need a cantilevered mount:
I failed to mention my prior comments were related to comparisons @ 500-800 yards only. We'll have them both out @ a regional match Sunday, I'll aim to spend more time with them side-by-side afterwards.
I have my LOP @ 13 7/8", shorter guys will need a cantilevered mount:
Last edited:
Had them both out this morning, plus another ZCO 840. Very bright out with thin overcast, so lighting conditions were pretty much perfect.
Both @ 25x: Inside of 1200 yards, we couldn't perceive any difference in the ability to resolve detail. @1200 yards it looked like the ZCO 840 might out-resolve the K540i. @1300 yards you could see 3 impacts on an unshaded, well-lit white plate more clearly with the ZCO 840. I'm leaning toward the difference not being sample variance, but the difference (and sample size) is so small 1) it could be and 2) again, you're splitting hairs. Mirage looked identical.
The K540i @ 25x has the same FOV as the ZCO 840 @ 19x.
Other than that, I'm going to defer to thorough reviews by the guys I tagged earlier & not to keep bumping this thread with my small observations. Happy to answer any questions though.
Edit: I’ll add that I didn’t think I’d care too much about the FOV & completely underestimated what the FOV would do to me. I’ve only run the k540i in one match & a few practice days, leaving it @ 25x for all shooting. Looking through everything else is already considerably less enjoyable.
Last edited:
Update 0/26/25 what's in stock! - Richard
Kahles K540i 5-40x56 DLR CCW SKMR4+ w-left Windage https://cstactical.com/kahles-k540i-5-40x56-dlr-ccw-skmr4-10721/
Kahles K540i 5-40x56 DLR CCW SKMR4+ w-left Windage https://cstactical.com/kahles-k540i-5-40x56-dlr-ccw-skmr4-10721/
Your "small observations," as you call them, are very interesting reading for the rest of us. Thank you for posting.
I’ve only messed with a k540i by hand at a small shop. I don’t think eyebox will be an issue at all for me with this scope.
The DLR turrets are nice. I’d say a step down from my Tangent, but above both versions of 15 mil ZCOs. I’ve liked to top parallax and LSW.
I couldn’t make any judgement at all regarding “glass” just hand holding and looking a few hundred yards, but I think my ZCO527 might be getting purdy nervous. I wasn’t a fan of their CS when I had to send in a k525i though.
The DLR turrets are nice. I’d say a step down from my Tangent, but above both versions of 15 mil ZCOs. I’ve liked to top parallax and LSW.
I couldn’t make any judgement at all regarding “glass” just hand holding and looking a few hundred yards, but I think my ZCO527 might be getting purdy nervous. I wasn’t a fan of their CS when I had to send in a k525i though.
Appreciate your input and comparisons R_A_W. That is what good wide FOV gets you, a lot of people don't realize how much of a difference the wider FOV is allowing you to stay on higher magnification yet still see more - it is a distinct advantage!
Yep, you really have to see it and experience it to really appreciate it. I noticed this with the March 4.5-28 a number of years ago and the ZP5/TT before that. I am traveling most of April but will try and get my hands on one of these after I return, I have the TT 7-35 and ZCO 8-40 lined up so this would make an excellent review.
I think that's the biggest challenge with Kahles - CS and the possibility it may have to go back to Austria for repairs... Huge advantage for ZCO to be hear in the states and TT in the socialist country above us... quick turn around with any issues and excellent CS.
IMO, other manufacturers who do not have support centers in the USA need to either be "cheaper" or they need to offer a distinct advantage over the competition. That's what I think March and Kahles have - an advantage due to their wide FOV eyepieces and excellent optics, for some it may not be worth it but for others I think it is.
Agreed.
And like I said, I have next to no experience with this specific optic, but I think Kahles has built a reputation of optics grossly overpriced relative to performance. My k525i was absolutely not a $3k+ contender, but hopefully that's not the case with this next 'generation'. For $4500, this optic needs to perform on more fronts than just extra gooder FoV, IMO.
I spent enough time with my zcomp and my mates 540 side by side looking at steel at snake river to have a pretty good idea how they stack up for me.
Pretty much the zcomp is better image wise. It’s close but the biggest thing was the zcomp has more contrast which helps with definition and resolving details a bit better. The 540 is a tiny bit softer image and looks a tiny bit more washed out. Edge to edge is better on the zcomp also.
What the 540 does really well is the obvious fov increase. I shoot on 12 power mostly with the zcomp for the fov I feel most comfortable with. Shooting with the 540 i was running 18 power and had the same fov as the zcomp. So that was nice. The image is larger on the 540 also, the image is a bit brighter and you see less of the eye piece. It’s really impressive and an enjoyable experience to be behind.
So for me, even though it’s not quite as good as the zcomp image wise, it’s close enough that the larger image, brighter image and bigger Fov, overshadow the small compromise you make in image quality. Plus I really enjoyed the parallax adjustment and left sided windage of my old 525, so I’m going to sell my zcomp and try a 540.
I think I’ll benefit from higher zoom for same Fov, the larger image etc. Plus I like the reticle a bit better. So we will see in a few months after I’ve had one for a while if I still feel the same way or if I go back to a zcomp and it’s superior image, but it’s a really good scope.
Pretty much the zcomp is better image wise. It’s close but the biggest thing was the zcomp has more contrast which helps with definition and resolving details a bit better. The 540 is a tiny bit softer image and looks a tiny bit more washed out. Edge to edge is better on the zcomp also.
What the 540 does really well is the obvious fov increase. I shoot on 12 power mostly with the zcomp for the fov I feel most comfortable with. Shooting with the 540 i was running 18 power and had the same fov as the zcomp. So that was nice. The image is larger on the 540 also, the image is a bit brighter and you see less of the eye piece. It’s really impressive and an enjoyable experience to be behind.
So for me, even though it’s not quite as good as the zcomp image wise, it’s close enough that the larger image, brighter image and bigger Fov, overshadow the small compromise you make in image quality. Plus I really enjoyed the parallax adjustment and left sided windage of my old 525, so I’m going to sell my zcomp and try a 540.
I think I’ll benefit from higher zoom for same Fov, the larger image etc. Plus I like the reticle a bit better. So we will see in a few months after I’ve had one for a while if I still feel the same way or if I go back to a zcomp and it’s superior image, but it’s a really good scope.
If you need the K540i hit me up and/or if you want an updated ZC527 10MIL M1X NLE let me know
-Richard 916-628-3490Similar threads
