thanks for posting this. I think this shows 2 things: 1. The PRS is a step above a true high level mid grade scope 2. How difficult it is to separate these higher end scopes, it is very difficult to see the difference with the naked eye. excellent pics and post.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Any one using the leica 5-30 PRS scopes?
- Thread starter Mrhyne
- Start date
thanks for posting this. I think this shows 2 things: 1. The PRS is a step above a true high level mid grade scope 2. How difficult it is to separate these higher end scopes, it is very difficult to see the difference with the naked eye. excellent pics and post.
Using a cellphone to take a picture through a scope is pretty difficult. Actually being behind the scope the Leica is a good tier above the Razor AMG. The eye box is really nice as well and getting behind it in dry fire drills felt really good. It's got a nicer eyebox than my other scopes.
Cell phone shots of the Razor HD AMG and the Leica @ 24x @ 200 yards. There was mirage today.
The CA that is shown with my phone camera through the Leica was not spottable at all via my eye. I kept checking the scope after I took the picture to see why there was CA in the picture but that I couldn't see it. It was just an issue with a lens through a lens. The Razor HD AMG didn't pick up any CA in the image through the phone, but the image is also a lot "browner".
So much more clarity in the Leica.
Razor HD AMG @ 24x @ 200 yards.
Leica PRS @ 24x @ 200 yards
The CA that is shown with my phone camera through the Leica was not spottable at all via my eye. I kept checking the scope after I took the picture to see why there was CA in the picture but that I couldn't see it. It was just an issue with a lens through a lens. The Razor HD AMG didn't pick up any CA in the image through the phone, but the image is also a lot "browner".
So much more clarity in the Leica.
Razor HD AMG @ 24x @ 200 yards.
Leica PRS @ 24x @ 200 yards
did the vortex look as brown with you eye as it did in the pic? Are you sure that wasn’t a Lens to lens thing.
No significant tracking tests yet. I'll have to set up a tall target test and make sure.
It definitely is browner, I mean it doesn't really bother me either when I shoot, it's only when comparing pics side by side. This is the uncropped pic, the white balance in the photos look pretty similar.
This pic really shows the advantage of the Leica. Looks excellent!!! I like that reticle too.............I can't stand the Vortex EBR-7C, busy as hell and just not my style. The .5 Mil vertical marks diving below the horizontal is really distracting to me..........wish they would have just kept .2 mil windage marks throughout, spaced evenly on the horizontal stadia. Guess that's why I don't own a Vortex with that reticle.
I ran the EBR-7B reticle on the Razor HD AMG all yesterday running through PRS 22 practice stages. Although the glass isn't the best, and the reticle is really busy, I love how the #'s are down the center line and how the reticle is dark and usable at 10x. The Leica, the holdover lines are only usable at 16x+, anything below they're just too faint.
I agree with you about how busy it is, if I was to design the perfect reticle, it'd be very similar to the Leica, just make the lines darker and usable at the 10-12x range. I'd also make the vertical stadia extend up to 2 mils instead of 1.
I'm also perfectly happy with just .5 mil hashes down the vertical stadia. I feel for quick holdovers I easily get .5, .1, and .25 as I'm halving between 2 lines pretty effectively. That's enough for my needs. I ran timed drills yesterday from 25-200 yard targets (holding at down .3, to up 7.0) and the AMG is so quick. I can dial down to 10x to have a large FoV, and the can quickly holdover on each target.
Man, I almost think you got bad glass on your AMG. My Leica seemed very similar to yours, but my AMG seemed much more comparable than yours. When I get back stateside I’ll compare those two with a 5-25 ATACR. My AMG out performs the ATACR optically for sure. Again, I had limited time with them before I left, the Leica was definitely better, but I couldn’t really see the difference until near dusk. After that it became much more pronounced. Now I really want to re-check though.
On good day conditions, the AMG is pretty nice. You can see at the 35 yard text, the AMG resolves it pretty well. It's just that on a mirage day, the AMG definitely gets affected more than the Leica. Most of the time I shoot in overcasty no mirage days, and my friend and I never noticed any issues with the AMG, but once mirage picks up, the AMG doesn't handle it as well as the nicer glass.
I'll head out to the mountains probably in a month and will bring the AMG and the Leica and compare glass at 1000 yards across a valley. There's some interesting mirage/thermals going on over there.
Awesome. I’m living vicariously through you right now lol. Thanks!
Not to detail this post ...but anyone have pics through a Leupold Mark 5hd??
I see a new scope in my future. And I've about narrowed it down to these 2 and the Mark5.
I see a new scope in my future. And I've about narrowed it down to these 2 and the Mark5.
Just figured I’d chime in here. I’ve been running the Leica PRS w/ PRB reticle for NRL & PRS type competition since May of this year. Very pleased overall. Tracks perfect. Glass quality is absolutely superb. Great turrets. I can’t even describe how much I love the tool free turret adjustment...so easy & so fast. Thus far, definitely among my best decisions as far as $$$ well spent/invested. I was a little bit hesitant just due to the reticle, but I’ve actually grown to love the floating open circle in the reticle.
Could Leica make some improvements to the optic for the next generation? Sure, absolutely. I was actually really impressed with the time the Leica reps spent with me on the phone going over my feedback on the scope after I’d had it for a month or so. They really seemed to value the feedback, and some of the things I suggested they are already working on.
-I’d like to see the vertical stadia above the main crosshairs extended a bit...maybe 3-4 mils rather than just 1.
-They need to adjust the position of the throw lever on the magnification ring so that I don’t need to remove it when running on 30x (this was probably my biggest criticism of the optic...it hits my bolt knob). They acknowledged that this is going to be addressed in the future. Not a huge deal though as I never go over 20x in competition. And it’s easy to thread on & off.
-wouldn’t mind if the reticle was just a tad heavier/thicker...maybe 25-35% or so. It can seem a bit too fine when under 12x.
-I’d like to see a few more distance references on the parallax adjustment.
Overall, absolutely awesome scope!!! Punches way above its weight class for the $$$. It easily goes toe-to-toe with the 7-35 ATACR (also a great scope) but for about $700-$800 less.
Could Leica make some improvements to the optic for the next generation? Sure, absolutely. I was actually really impressed with the time the Leica reps spent with me on the phone going over my feedback on the scope after I’d had it for a month or so. They really seemed to value the feedback, and some of the things I suggested they are already working on.
-I’d like to see the vertical stadia above the main crosshairs extended a bit...maybe 3-4 mils rather than just 1.
-They need to adjust the position of the throw lever on the magnification ring so that I don’t need to remove it when running on 30x (this was probably my biggest criticism of the optic...it hits my bolt knob). They acknowledged that this is going to be addressed in the future. Not a huge deal though as I never go over 20x in competition. And it’s easy to thread on & off.
-wouldn’t mind if the reticle was just a tad heavier/thicker...maybe 25-35% or so. It can seem a bit too fine when under 12x.
-I’d like to see a few more distance references on the parallax adjustment.
Overall, absolutely awesome scope!!! Punches way above its weight class for the $$$. It easily goes toe-to-toe with the 7-35 ATACR (also a great scope) but for about $700-$800 less.
As per my review I shared above, I prefer the Leica. No bad options though, the NF ATACRs are great scopes for sure. The Leica glass is just a bit better though. Reticle is personal preference issue. But awesomeness of the tool-less turret adjustments for the Leica just can’t be overlooked...it’s definitely one of my favorite features.
Choose the reticle that works for you. I'm a fan of the PRB reticle over Mil-XT.
I have seriously changed my mind 20 times. I’m ok with all reticles. I like MilC and PRB.
I have had Leica Binos for years and they have taken abuse. I wonder if this scope will perform the same. We know the Atacr will.
the toolless zero is great as well.
this is going on my long range hunting and target rifle. It will be with me through weeks in the mountains and needs to take some abuse.
I have a pro deal on both so price is a wash.
I have had Leica Binos for years and they have taken abuse. I wonder if this scope will perform the same. We know the Atacr will.
the toolless zero is great as well.
this is going on my long range hunting and target rifle. It will be with me through weeks in the mountains and needs to take some abuse.
I have a pro deal on both so price is a wash.
I tried to see it on Expertvoice, but I guess I dont have the proper affilations....
If you don't care about reticles wise, the Leica glass is slightly better than the ATACR, and you get 5x more magnification. I'd go with the Leica.
Hi have a Leica 5-30i PRS as a loaner.
I think above 20+ magnification, I'm not too impressed.
Not sure if anything's wrong with mine.
I think above 20+ magnification, I'm not too impressed.
Not sure if anything's wrong with mine.
Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. However, you are literally the first individual I’ve ever come across that has stated they were not impressed by the glass. What other glass did you have for comparison? Did you make sure the Leica scope was pretty clean & in good condition? What kind of issues were you seeing with the glass?
It's not an opinion yet. I wonder what is (possibly) wrong? It could be the Leica I have on loan that is not perfect, and I don't want to conclude anything. But my friend had some "issues" with theirs as well above 20x+. It looks to me that something may be wrong with this one, but everything is subjective.
I have Leica 8x56 Geovid binos and they are the best!
I used a S&B 5-45x56 PMII in my setup just before (the hour before) and it was perfect.
I have S&B 3-12, 5-20, 5-25, 3-27, 5-45 etc. and know the ZCO5-27.
The S&B 5-45x56 PMII on 45x to compare. I know the price is like 2x the Leica, but don't expect the performance to have such huge difference.
Attachments
Last edited:
Looks to me that there's quite a lot of chromatic aberration in my Leica pictures.
I reset the ocular, checked and cleaned the lenses for dirt, checked the parallax etc. but still not getting there.
I reset the ocular, checked and cleaned the lenses for dirt, checked the parallax etc. but still not getting there.
Just took delivery of a March 5-42 wide angle and compared it to a 4.5-27 Razor hHD and a Leica PRS.
I ended up returning the March due to an issue, and will order a second Leica.
While the March is really nice, the Leica held its own nicely optically speaking. The PRB reticle is also better then the FML IMO.
I ended up returning the March due to an issue, and will order a second Leica.
While the March is really nice, the Leica held its own nicely optically speaking. The PRB reticle is also better then the FML IMO.
Main issue is that the diopter only goes to -2 vs -3 on Leica, -3.5 on TT. -3 seems to be the normal value for scopes I have seen, so it was not an issue I expected. Not a problem for me, but it is an issue for the family member that was going to be the primary user. They can fix this for a fee, but it was not cheap and it would take 6 weeks.
Glass was good, great FOV of course, but frankly I think the Leica was just as good. I could see 6.5mm bullet holes on white paper at 500m with both at ca 27x, but had a harder time with the Vortex. Contrast, clarity seemed pretty similar. After about 35x the March got suddenly a lot darker, but was still very useful.
Finally got to use my PRS PRB in a 2 day class last weekend. Really enjoyed the scope, legible turrets, quick tooless re-zero at the start of class, very clear glass. Only dialed, didn't hold elevation, so the happy spot for me with the thin lines and center circle was 12-15 power minimum. Below that was difficult for my eyes.
Looking for more feedback on the reticle below 12x...
Are you saying the tree was unusable due to visibility, or the .2 mil windage hash marks were unusable? Is the reticle basically a plex reticle below 12x?
I would be a bit disappointed if the reticle is basically a plex at less than 12x. I'm looking to buy a scope and this was on my short list (along with the minox 5-25 LR and an ATACR). Despite common complaints, I'm okay with the tree layout, but not being able to use windage markers below 12x would be a deal breaker for me.
I could not see the .2 hashes on the stadia at 12x. I had to be at around 15+ to make it comfortable to use. That's with my eyes.
Similar threads
Rifle Scopes
Athlon Ares ETR vs everything else for PRS rimfire.
