So it actually took me awhile to figure it out because I kept blaming other things. The first symptoms of an issue showed up and it seemed like flyers. Rifles that would typically shoot .5" or under would start throwing bullets .75" to 1" from the group but it was never consistent. After talking to several other people that had similar issues(around 2017-2018 time frame) I ended up sending both of mine off for repair and they sent me a loaner which also ended up having the same issue but worse. I sent the loaner back after a match and ended up selling both of mine after they came back from repair. This was kinda a not so hidden secret with PRS shooters in that timeframe which is why one of the most quietly hyped features of the K525 when it first came out was a redesigned erector.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Any regret buying an alpha scope?
- Thread starter Jones D
- Start date
Lol, I get it and it works. No one I've met or talked to that's experienced high-end optics looks through a Leupold and says "wow", "damnnn", or "that looks great". Regardless guys are legitimately winning with them free or not.
Ya the three options i listed are apex <1500cad, NF <3000cad then tt at the top price point. Just curious on other experiences with the top tier stuff and possible regrets
The 3-18 with SCR2. From my initial fondling of it and playing with it, I like what I’m seeing.
@Glassaholic seems to like it too. I think it punches way above its price range. I can tell already the glass is better then my old G2 Razor 4.5-27.
One of mine is great, but the other one always shot 1 good group at the beginning of each range session, then like a shotgun for every group the rest of the day. Did you ever have that happen?
I'm running the Steiner T6 3-18 MSR2. Overall its been very nice. Glass is very good and turrets also. Reticle options are few but the MSR2 is awesome for field use. It won't hold up to the TT but it is perfectly useable.
Question is, what do you consider alpha? Is it by price alone? If that is the case then I regret buying the Schmidt 3-27x56 as its optical performance is sub par for an alpha class scope; however, all the other Schmidts I've had are phenomenal.
There is no better scope optically in the 3-15 lightweight category than the TT. The NF ATACR 4-16x42 is an amazing scope but with 42mm objective may not be the best choice for lowlight situations.
Yes, I really like the Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56, wish they had better QC (at Greeley) but at least they have a great warranty. I'll be comparing mine soon to my NF ATACR 4-16x42 to give folks an idea of the kind of optical performance they can expect from Steiner T6Xi which is already head and shoulders above the abysmal Steiner T5Xi which was a good example of what really bad CA can do to a scope.
yup, the loaner. I developed a load quickly for my 6.5 saum that shot great before the LRSE match and on zero day I was getting 2"+ groups. The best way to check to see if it's the scope that's the problem is to swap it with a known good scope. Sounds like a "no duh" solution but it took me awhile a first because I didn't want to believe it was the scope.
Generally id go by price as the main alpha scope brands (tt, zco, sb, zeiss ect) dont really offer massive discounts on their stuff. But I've also never owned one so i have to go by peoples reviews and experiences cause expectation and reality can differ. Sucks to hear that your 3-27 didnt live up. i would have hoped that a scope from SB would fully deliver.
I did that, and it kept doing it, so I sent the rifle back to Christensen Arms (it's still there now being looked at). I swapped on my brand new Burris XTR-IIIi 5.5-30x56 SCR 2, and it still continued to shoot like shit. So, I'm pretty sure it was the gun, but I was just curious as I had never heard of this phenomenon, and that K624i's had this issue. So it got me curious. Well, it's now on my old Gen1 700 5R Milspec .308 Win, and we'll see if she'll hold groups. If so, I guess the scope is fine. The other one I have is perfect, and the rifle shoots 1/2" 5-shot groups all day long.
They fully deliver for what they are designed for but you have to understand the limitations of the design. If you are the military contractor the 3-27 was designed for you’re probably very happy, but if you have a TT and think you’d like a bit more flexibility and think cause they are priced the same you will be disappointed. Price point alone is not a definitive determinant of optical excellence, every scope has compromises, the question is where and will it affect what your end goal is. Modern sporting optics over the past five years have gotten so good there are a number of great options to choose from. There are a number of scopes that “punch above their class” but that number dwindles as you look for lighter weight scopes.
I don’t think I’ll be regretting this one that came in today, either. 
Going back a few years the 5-25 was the underperforming model in the lineup.I don’t think I’ll be regretting this one that came in today, either.
View attachment 8171599View attachment 8171600View attachment 8171603View attachment 8171601View attachment 8171602
I’m sure it will be fine for my purposes. But thanks for shitting on a lifelong dream of owning a Nightforce scope… I’ve looked through tons, shot through plenty, sold even more than both combined…Just never owned one…Until now.
Still might go 7-35x someday…But my next big optic purchase will be a ZCO 527.
I'm glad I found this thread. It has been good hearing both sides of the argument.
I'm getting ready to invest ~$2K in an optic, once I figure out which features are more important to me and my intended use (nobody makes a perfect scope for everyone). I've got a short list with about three possibilities at the moment (T6Xi, LRP S3, and NX8), so it is nice to hear the occasional gripes of certain models when guys are less likely to overhype something because they invested money into it.
I know that I'm not getting close to an "alpha" optic at my price point, so I'll GBPSE. However (other features excluded), when I had my buddy's 5-25 S&B next to my US made XTR III 5.5-30...there wasn't enough difference (again, in glass) to make me feel like I was just being poor by spending $3K less. There was a difference...but diminishing returns was in full effect.
FWIW: I do own two thermal scopes, so I have spent money on optics before
.
I'm getting ready to invest ~$2K in an optic, once I figure out which features are more important to me and my intended use (nobody makes a perfect scope for everyone). I've got a short list with about three possibilities at the moment (T6Xi, LRP S3, and NX8), so it is nice to hear the occasional gripes of certain models when guys are less likely to overhype something because they invested money into it.
I know that I'm not getting close to an "alpha" optic at my price point, so I'll GBPSE. However (other features excluded), when I had my buddy's 5-25 S&B next to my US made XTR III 5.5-30...there wasn't enough difference (again, in glass) to make me feel like I was just being poor by spending $3K less. There was a difference...but diminishing returns was in full effect.
FWIW: I do own two thermal scopes, so I have spent money on optics before
.
Last edited:
As I leave this world, I am pretty sure I won’t tell myself that I should not have bought the scope I really wanted.
Zeiss LRP S3 is a solid scope. I have a 6-36x model.I'm glad I found this thread. It has been good hearing both sides of the argument.
I'm getting ready to invest ~$2K in an optic, once I figure out which features are more important to me and my intended use (nobody makes a perfect scope for everyone). I've got a short list with about three possibilities at the moment (T6Xi, LRP S3, and NX8), so it is nice to hear the occasional gripes of certain models when guys are less likely to overhype something because they invested money into it.
I know that I'm not getting close to an "alpha" optic at my price point, so I'll GBPSE. However (other features excluded), when I had my buddy's 5-25 S&B next to my US made XTR III 5.5-30...there wasn't enough difference (again, in glass) to make me feel like I was just being poor by spending $3K less. There was a difference...but diminishing returns was in full effect.
FWIW: I do own two thermal scopes, so I have spent money on optics before
EuroOptic has the Kahles K624i for $2,699 all day everyday (and can get you down close to $2K, if you get LE/MIL/Vet/FR discount).
I own quite a few scopes over $3K…And my next one will be over $4K. I dream plenty big enough. Just always wanted a NF in my collection.Dare to dream bigger.
I encourage everyone that is nervous about "regretting" an alpha scope purchase to just do it. You will either love it, or realize you can live without it. Your brain won't shut up until you try one, and no one likes living with regrets.
Years ago when the ATACR 5-25 Mil-C came out, I traded up from a Kahles K624 to the 5-25 ATACR to a S&B 5-20US, but finally settled on a 4-16 ATACR with $1000+ back in my pocket. I also tried a S&B 5-25 in this time. I discovered that while I certainly prefer the Kahles and S&B US when it comes to glass and package, the NF 4-16 did everything I wanted well enough at a price point ($1800 used each) that I was more than satisfied with.
Did I regret trying the Alpha glass at the time? No, because I gained knowledge. Would I buy a ZCO or another S&B US if I had excess funds just to punch steel and furbearers? Absolutely, but it isn't because of a need or belief that it will help my hit %.
Edit to add: As a NF fanboi with 3 of their optics, lol @ NF being called alpha glass. The ATACR line is like Tier 1.5 in my book.
Years ago when the ATACR 5-25 Mil-C came out, I traded up from a Kahles K624 to the 5-25 ATACR to a S&B 5-20US, but finally settled on a 4-16 ATACR with $1000+ back in my pocket. I also tried a S&B 5-25 in this time. I discovered that while I certainly prefer the Kahles and S&B US when it comes to glass and package, the NF 4-16 did everything I wanted well enough at a price point ($1800 used each) that I was more than satisfied with.
Did I regret trying the Alpha glass at the time? No, because I gained knowledge. Would I buy a ZCO or another S&B US if I had excess funds just to punch steel and furbearers? Absolutely, but it isn't because of a need or belief that it will help my hit %.
Edit to add: As a NF fanboi with 3 of their optics, lol @ NF being called alpha glass. The ATACR line is like Tier 1.5 in my book.
Last edited:
Ill go on record and say I sort of regret spending over 1200 on scopes.
Zero tangible advantages to myself.
Zero tangible advantages to myself.
I don't technically own any "alpha" scopes - they are probably considered an "alpha minus" perhaps.
3 Khales K624's and a Steiner M5. The Khales have great reticles, decent glass, good turrets & very reliable tracking, etc. A really good all around scope that's not really best in class at any one thing. The Steiner has better glass, less tactile turrets, worse reticle (and reticle selection), but still a decent performer.
While it would be nice to own a TT, I can't recall a single time when I've been shooting and thought to myself "I really need a TT right now".
3 Khales K624's and a Steiner M5. The Khales have great reticles, decent glass, good turrets & very reliable tracking, etc. A really good all around scope that's not really best in class at any one thing. The Steiner has better glass, less tactile turrets, worse reticle (and reticle selection), but still a decent performer.
While it would be nice to own a TT, I can't recall a single time when I've been shooting and thought to myself "I really need a TT right now".
That’s exactly why I haven’t bought a ZCO thus far, but now that I make good money, I plan to get one just to add to the collection. Like you said, I’ve rarely ever had a time where I felt like I needed a scope costing over $1,500. I grew up a poor, using shit scopes, so anything Arken SH4 Gen2 or better, and 99% of the time I’d be just fine. But it is nice having the alpha glass clarity and smooth & fluid mechanicals of the high-end scopes.
Even they have compromisesZero Compromise.
Some scopes just hide them better than others.
^^^ This right here, some sound experience and advice. One thing to keep in mind, if you bite the bullet and get alpha glass the resale is typically pretty good so you don't lose much (especially if you buy used from the classifieds here) even if you decide to go back down to bravo class
Funny, I thought the same thing, but...
I do have to agree here, when you spend tons of time researching and then spend money to purchase a "dream" scope and someone then dumps on that afterward it really deflates the sails. Sometimes I've bought scopes just to see what the fuss was all about, other times I've bought them thinking "they can't be that bad". The point being is we buy and sell scopes while pursuing different needs for our situation, a scope that is one mans garbage can be a dream come true for another
That's because you've never had a TT
Just kidding, but seriously, I've owned TT, I've owned ZCO, Schmidt, Zeiss, Kahles, March... ummm, well the list goes on. I buy scopes that interest me and I've sold a lot of scopes that I really liked but wanted to try something new (yes, it is a disease called scope derangement syndrome or SDS ), there are a few scopes that I truly "regret" selling and that is the Premier Reticles LT 3-15x50 (this was my first truly "alpha" scope), the Minox ZP5 5-25x56 with MR4 reticle (for the price you just can't beat the performance) and the Vortex AMG 6-24x50 (a truly 100% made in the USA 28oz marvel). Would I own another TT, yes - if I could get one for half the price; I am not made of money so I have to pick and choose wisely.
I'll let you know when my 7-35x56 TT gets here.That's because you've never had a TT
ILya
that is supposed to be a drool emoji, but it looks more like spit
That's because you've never had a TT
Don't get me wrong - I would love a TT.
I just don't have a "need" for one, and my money is better spent elsewhere at the moment.
One day I may buy a TT - would look great on top of the TacOps
In the meantime I'll leave vicariously through people like you, the name "Glassaholic" sounds pretty apt
You have a good perspective as there is a difference between need and want. In my alpha class scope review I showed how the Vortex G3 6-36x56 stacks up quite nicely to the "alpha" class, even if someone can easily afford a TT I see nothing wrong with choosing a lesser scope that meets your needs.Don't get me wrong - I would love a TT.
I just don't have a "need" for one, and my money is better spent elsewhere at the moment.
One day I may buy a TT - would look great on top of the TacOps
In the meantime I'll leave vicariously through people like you, the name "Glassaholic" sounds pretty apt
I'm glad you caught that with "Glassaholic" because it is an addiction
You have a good perspective as there is a difference between need and want. In my alpha class scope review I showed how the Vortex G3 6-36x56 stacks up quite nicely to the "alpha" class, even if someone can easily afford a TT I see nothing wrong with choosing a lesser scope that meets your needs.
I'm glad you caught that with "Glassaholic" because it is an addiction
The law of diminishing returns seems to apply to scopes as much as anything else.
And a lot of the scopes these days are really good - the scope world has improved dramatically since I first got in the sport. A lot more bang for your buck in today's world of scopes.
I'm very much a value shopper these days. Haven't bought a scope in years (haven't "needed" too), but when buying a set of 10x bino's for hunting, I opted for Kowa Genesis 10.5x44's over paying more than double for an equivalent Swaro. I want good optics, but I'll settle with "alpha minus" if it means I can save a few grand.
I'm not a glass connoisseur so I have a hard time telling between high-top end glass.
I have an Apex Rival and am very happy with it, I'm considering one of their hunting optics but I wish it had 20x mag. As a Canadian I would recommend you go that route to support a good company.
I do think my next optic will be a ZCO with the 10 mil turrets but mostly just because I want one, I believe the main improvement over the apex would be how positive the clicks are on the new ZCO.
I have an Apex Rival and am very happy with it, I'm considering one of their hunting optics but I wish it had 20x mag. As a Canadian I would recommend you go that route to support a good company.
I do think my next optic will be a ZCO with the 10 mil turrets but mostly just because I want one, I believe the main improvement over the apex would be how positive the clicks are on the new ZCO.
I have the 5-30 with SCR2- Mil reticle. I love it. It is much better than optics on rifles I have borrowed before I got my rifle put together.
But I have never shot a TT or a ZCO, so I really only know the difference between this scope and the others I have shot which were all lower cost scopes (Vortex Strike Eagle and the like). The difference was night and day.
$2499 pretty much everywhere
Steiner T6Xi 5-30x56mm MSR2 Riflescope 5124
FREE SHIPPING on Steiner T6Xi 5-30x56mm MSR2 Riflescope 5124
Like anything else it's diminishing returns near the top. That said, if you are a serious shooter the danger is not in buyer's remorse, but in the addictive nature of tier I glass and perfect turrets. I don't know a single person who has just one $4,000 scope (no matter their income). They're as addictive as suppressors, probably more. If you buy one you'll end up with five.
Depending on where you're hunting you may not like FFP at all. I mostly hunt wooded, hilly areas where a 400 yard shot is going to be the absolute longest sight line possible (on a power cut or a big tillable). I tried a tier I FFP scope and hated the tiny reticle at the lowest power settings (even with illum). I went to a 56mm, 2FP, NF, NSX and it is damn near perfect. The smaller ones go down to 2.5X, which I would actually prefer, but I'd rather bottom out at 5.5X and have the full 56mm of light gathering for those 30 min on either side of the sun. I can barely see the deer with my naked eye for the gloom, but it looks like full daylight through my scope. I have shot some monster bucks at that magic time because of hunting enough scope. If you're out West with no trees and typically shoot at longer ranges then FFP is mo better.
Depending on where you're hunting you may not like FFP at all. I mostly hunt wooded, hilly areas where a 400 yard shot is going to be the absolute longest sight line possible (on a power cut or a big tillable). I tried a tier I FFP scope and hated the tiny reticle at the lowest power settings (even with illum). I went to a 56mm, 2FP, NF, NSX and it is damn near perfect. The smaller ones go down to 2.5X, which I would actually prefer, but I'd rather bottom out at 5.5X and have the full 56mm of light gathering for those 30 min on either side of the sun. I can barely see the deer with my naked eye for the gloom, but it looks like full daylight through my scope. I have shot some monster bucks at that magic time because of hunting enough scope. If you're out West with no trees and typically shoot at longer ranges then FFP is mo better.
Hit up a hide vendor and it’s way below that, actually….$2499 pretty much everywhere
Steiner T6Xi 5-30x56mm MSR2 Riflescope 5124
FREE SHIPPING on Steiner T6Xi 5-30x56mm MSR2 Riflescope 5124www.eurooptic.com
There are a few places ill be hunting. Could be rolling hills and trees, in a tree stand or set up on a cut line. Could be in a valley type area or by the rockies where it could be a longer shot. So was thinking an ffp may be a bit better all round. Definitely agree if i was sticking to tree’d areas, the shots would be in closer and an sfp would be better suited.
You will find that no scope or rifle does it all. There is a correct tool for the job you're doing depending on what that job is. I have found, through trial and error, that I prefer hunting with a SFP scope by a country mile rather than the constant cursing of using a FFP scope on low power in the woods. I even hunt from a woods deer stand with a .444 or .35 lever gun and iron sights, because it simply is easier and works better than messing with a scope when you know the shot will be <100 yards. Just no point in putting yourself at a disadvantage.
This from someone who bow hunts more than rifle hunts these days.
I would try dissuade any hunter not shooting on open plains from a FFP hunting scope. If you're dialing you can still shoot a SFP scope to 1000 yards almost as easily, you just can't use the reticle and hold-over at long range. That big 'ol reticle at close range is invaluable to me, and lets me take an accurate shot while I'm glassing through the scope on low power without fiddling with it and missing an opportunity.
This from someone who bow hunts more than rifle hunts these days.
I would try dissuade any hunter not shooting on open plains from a FFP hunting scope. If you're dialing you can still shoot a SFP scope to 1000 yards almost as easily, you just can't use the reticle and hold-over at long range. That big 'ol reticle at close range is invaluable to me, and lets me take an accurate shot while I'm glassing through the scope on low power without fiddling with it and missing an opportunity.
I think a lot of this goes back to what we need it for.
I'm not a professional at anything. $1500 glass allows me to see into shadows at ~350 yards and identify things for several minutes in twilight when my aging eyes fail to do that for me. My stuff survives regular trips though the pastures and across the creeks in my SxS without hiccup in zero retention. Low, mid-tier optics work for non-competitive and non-operational dudes like me. BUT...I know that I'm not aggressively testing the limits of their durability either.
If I had TT money to put one on every rifle, I damn sure would. I'm not going to try to bullshit anyone there. For those who do have TT money, it doesn't matter if you use it for any particular application, or just enjoy nice things...no judgement there.
The other 95% of us are always going to try figure out where we can get the best bang for the buck.
I'm not a professional at anything. $1500 glass allows me to see into shadows at ~350 yards and identify things for several minutes in twilight when my aging eyes fail to do that for me. My stuff survives regular trips though the pastures and across the creeks in my SxS without hiccup in zero retention. Low, mid-tier optics work for non-competitive and non-operational dudes like me. BUT...I know that I'm not aggressively testing the limits of their durability either.
If I had TT money to put one on every rifle, I damn sure would. I'm not going to try to bullshit anyone there. For those who do have TT money, it doesn't matter if you use it for any particular application, or just enjoy nice things...no judgement there.
The other 95% of us are always going to try figure out where we can get the best bang for the buck.
