-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes K525 SUCKS !!!!! SB PM2 5-25 vs K525 VS TT525P
- Thread starter Msaon308
- Start date
Hopefully soon though.
Do you notice a big difference clarity, ca, and low light between your 525 and 318?
I haven't really seen the 525 in low light. I did get 25 minutes or so after sunset with the 318, roughly matching my SN-3 which i thought was more than acceptable given it's size, despite the larger objective.
As far as CA and Clarity i don't notice much at all. Though i spent more time behind the 525 today than anything and to contrast what i was seeing with the Kahles i kept going back to the V6. Really should've put the SN-3 on there. Despite it's age it's a more adequate comparison than the V6 and it's the one optic i own that i to this day don't think about selling. Partially because it has sentimental value but it also has been an outstanding optic for 9 years now.
I think the 318 impresses me more to be frank. Least it doesn't feel so constricted at max power compared to the 525. At the moment it's more comfortable to sit behind to me. Though i sometimes go through a decent bit of trial and error getting eye relief just right for scopes. The 525 i slapped on my tempest last night, got it moderately normal, and ran with it. Heading back to the med center tomorrow.
if you can try to look through the 7-35 and any of the euro optics mentioned in this thread...after looking through several different euro optics i think the European glass is quite a bit better...i wish meopta would step into the tactical scope market.
I own 2 k624i's that are on a Barrett and an AXMC. I recently purchased the new k318i for my Larue and k525i for my GAP. I love these scopes! First time out with the new ones was yesterday. Made 7/10 hits in incoming storm winds at 1,400 yds on a 100% IPSC with the 6.5mm.
I could not see any CA going on, I wanted to take pictures through the scopes but it's nearly impossible.
I could not see any CA going on, I wanted to take pictures through the scopes but it's nearly impossible.
Attachments
When I bought my first high end scope I went to Mile High and tried out Kahles, SB and NF. My eyes may not be as discriminating as some of those here but I thought the glass on the Kahles was as good as the other two and the eye box and controls seemed superior. Since then I bought two more 624s - one is on a second AI and the third is on a JP in 6.5 Grendel. All 3 have gotten plenty of use and been banged around and exposed to the various conditions from extreme cold and snow in Wyoming to dust and heat in New Mexico. I think the things I like best about my Kahles scopes are accurate tracking, the Shannon Kay reticles, and the comfortable eye box. I own a few NF's as well - the ATACR 1-8 I just bought went on a JP in .223 and I used it recently in a carbine match shooting out to 700 yds.
The two Kahles on the AI's have been used to shoot out to a mile and are regularly shot at 1000+ yds. Based on all of this I recently bought a 318i and put it on a custom Manners/Curtis/Proof in 6.5 C and have been very happy with the glass and controls thus far. The fact that you can get used Kahles at great prices because they get missed reviews just sweetens the pot vs. a TT which does a better job of holding its value based on its almost unanimously positive reviews.
I would be surprised if TT isn't better than the Kahles - it's more expensive so it should be. I'm not good enough to need anything better than a Kahles. I thought there were some interesting posts here - always like hearing from Ilya - but I wish we could avoid useless and misleading hyperbole like "Kahles sucks".
Typical these days I guess.
The two Kahles on the AI's have been used to shoot out to a mile and are regularly shot at 1000+ yds. Based on all of this I recently bought a 318i and put it on a custom Manners/Curtis/Proof in 6.5 C and have been very happy with the glass and controls thus far. The fact that you can get used Kahles at great prices because they get missed reviews just sweetens the pot vs. a TT which does a better job of holding its value based on its almost unanimously positive reviews.
I would be surprised if TT isn't better than the Kahles - it's more expensive so it should be. I'm not good enough to need anything better than a Kahles. I thought there were some interesting posts here - always like hearing from Ilya - but I wish we could avoid useless and misleading hyperbole like "Kahles sucks".
Typical these days I guess.
Last edited:
It really goes to show that the rating of a scope is pretty subjective. I have a NF 7-35 with the MIL-C. I also have two S&B PM II, Khales k624, USO SN3. I have owned a couple of other brands that were sold. I spent some time behind the TT. I love my NF 7-35 and find nothing about it average. However, I don’t rank glass as the dominant characteristic. My view is that a scope has one dominant purpose and that is to guarantee that POI and POA are one and the same. If a scope don’t track over a large amount of erector travel, then I am not interested.
The NF has done better on the tall target, 15 mil excursion test than any other scope I own. The ZS mechanism is amazing. It can be set anywhere which has a huge degree of advantage when shooting a multiple caliber rifle like my AT. The turrets have excellent feel and are much more legible than either of my S&Bs, especially the one with MTC. The only turret I liked better is the TT. Image quality for me is subjective. I like both the NF and the S&B. The MINOX ZP5 I got to try was pretty impressive. It may be better than both the NF and S&B. The MIL-C is better than any reticle that S&B makes. When they come out with the Christmas tree version, it will be hard to beat the NF.....IMHO
The reality of all of this is that when you are spending North of $3K, there is a lot to choose from and all have pros and cons. Which you choose is likely to reflect your criteria preferences and what is more important to you personally. To say that one scope is hands down better than others in all categories is pretty foolish. All have their place....other than IOR
Last edited:
I like the objectivity of your post, and the posts of other open minded guys in the post. I have the 7-35 NF too, and the 525i, and 624i, and blah blah.
When I read not worth the coin, it frightens me to open the safe door with all my LR rifles in, they all have the same actions, the same manners stocks, the same price range optics and acc, with cans on them.
I'd eat a bullet if forced to justify worth, lol
I like what you are saying.
We all have a priority list for the scopes that we plan on using and what we plan on using them for and all have a personal path we take to deiced what scope is best for us.
Here are a couple of examples of my personal decision trees: (Notice glass is actually a bit lower than many might choose, but something that often sets the choice once all other items are met.)
I am not saying this is perfect, but here is what "I" kinda go through when looking at the scopes.
Let's just assume tracking is solid, scopes are robust and these scopes are FFP
A positional scope (NRL,PRS, Field matches) might look like this:
1. Reticle Style
2. Elevation - 100/30mil more is better
3. Turret feel and readability
4. FOV at low and mid power
5. Parallax easy and easily repeatable at known visual settings
6. Capped or lockable windage or some other way not to roll windage on a barricade
7. Magnification range top end near 25x
8. Forgiving eye-box
9. Warrantee
10. Glass (moves up on my list if my budget allows for all 9 items are near equal)
I then filter out by my price range.. Depending on what I have to spend I might have 1 choice or 10 that offer everything. I might have to save more $$ or give something up..(I would start from the bottom if i did)
For hunting might look like this:
1. FOV at low power more is better
2. Reticle Style - a thin center, but subtensions
3. Magnification range top end near 15x but as long as FOV is large upper end isn't limited
4. Turret feel and readability
5. Elevation - 60+/20mil
6. Glass (moves up on my list if my budget allows for all 9 items are near equal)
7. Illumination
8. Capped or lockable windage
9. Warrantee
I then filter out by my price range.. Depending on what I have to spend I might have 1 choice or 10.. I might have to save more $$ or give something up..(I would start from the bottom if i did)
Seems a lot of new people do it this way for a long range scope
1. Price
2. Magnification - the more the better most seem to think! (they have no idea how this negatively effects FOV)
3. Glass
4. Reticle Style
5. FFP or SFP often not sure
6. Warrantee.
Oh, and they have no idea how important FOV is or Elevation travel is -- usually causing them to "upgrade" as soon as they find the issues.
The reason for putting price last and then using it as a "filter" is it will allow you to look at all the inspirational offerings and you may then be better prepared to assign a better budget number than picking one out of the air.
Last edited:
Excellent post and totally agree. For me price is seldom in the decision tree within reason. I also find that many new and some experienced shooters make their selection based on fringe use cases. “I want to be able to shoot (pick a distance)”. How often do you shoot that far? Once or twice a year....
I learned long ago that if a use case is < 10% of my norm, it doesn’t count as a criteria.
LOL, there's still no perfect scope, is there???
For whatever reason my eye doesn't pick up CA much, but purple is my favorite color??? I guess that's one thing I will never be annoyed about.
I don't know why but having a reticle, all in .2's, is pleasing to me, and useful.
Then there's the so called clutter, it doesn't bother me and I use the hashes.
I like my S&B's/H59 enough compared to any other scope out that I've had a chance to compare, which is most, and have no reason to try another top brand.
I'm also just getting to the point that I'd rather spend my extra money on other things besides top tier scopes because when I get behind my Ares BTR 4.5-27x50 with the APLR3 reticle, I can do most of the same things with it that I can with the S&B's and the glass isn't bad in the Ares. Thankfully, I might add, I'm done buying expensive glass.
Staying on topic, I was behind a Kahles 5-25 yesterday. I liked it well enough but I didn't feel the glass was as nice as my S&B. When I say that I mean the warmness the S&B has. I do know I dislike when .2's go to .5's in the reticle.
For whatever reason my eye doesn't pick up CA much, but purple is my favorite color??? I guess that's one thing I will never be annoyed about.
I don't know why but having a reticle, all in .2's, is pleasing to me, and useful.
Then there's the so called clutter, it doesn't bother me and I use the hashes.
I like my S&B's/H59 enough compared to any other scope out that I've had a chance to compare, which is most, and have no reason to try another top brand.
I'm also just getting to the point that I'd rather spend my extra money on other things besides top tier scopes because when I get behind my Ares BTR 4.5-27x50 with the APLR3 reticle, I can do most of the same things with it that I can with the S&B's and the glass isn't bad in the Ares. Thankfully, I might add, I'm done buying expensive glass.
Staying on topic, I was behind a Kahles 5-25 yesterday. I liked it well enough but I didn't feel the glass was as nice as my S&B. When I say that I mean the warmness the S&B has. I do know I dislike when .2's go to .5's in the reticle.
In the last year i've been searching for the perfect optic (for me) within my budget. Got behind NF ATACRS, Leupy Mark 5, Gen II Razors, Kahles k624i(s), one S&B briefly, and of course own an SN-3 that i've had for nearly 10 years. Ran the MK5 with the H59 and granted didn't give the H59 that much time but found it slowing me down on a boat hold-over stage. Went and shot with the SKMR3 at a local match with a buddy and absolutely loved it. I do think there needs to be a SKMR4 with 2/10th vertical and horizontal deviations on the tree, but idk when that will happen. I really wanted that next step up from my SN-3 (though i still love that scope) but i'd been looking to move to glass along the lines of Gen II Razor and up with some updated features scope wise. Mainly the reticle. Which is ultimately why i have both the K318i and K525i now. I love the SKMR3. I think the MR4 or MPCT2 could possibly persuade me to want to move to Minox or ZCO if i found the glass to be that large of a leap. I'll admit i love comparing glass, in respects to the sport it doesn't really contribute that much past $1500, there are differences but under no circumstance is that going to be a detriment to my scoring in a match.
I do think if NF would field a Mil-C with a tree reticle i'd see myself owning some ATACRs for sure. Though i can't see that happening because it would detract from Horus variant sells less it was sold with an increased $300 premium like the Horus reticles. Still want to get behind an AMG also i hear nothing but high praise for that scope.
I do think if NF would field a Mil-C with a tree reticle i'd see myself owning some ATACRs for sure. Though i can't see that happening because it would detract from Horus variant sells less it was sold with an increased $300 premium like the Horus reticles. Still want to get behind an AMG also i hear nothing but high praise for that scope.
I got a minox ZP5 mr4 I’ll swap you for the 525i. ?
Zero complaints except I need some optics that focus at 25 or less.
I'd have to see the ZP5 next to my K525i before i'd think about it. Even then it would have to considerably better, i really like the SKMR3. Buddy of mine here has one though so i plan to compare if i can ever get any time.
I see your on a roof top ~ what is your use for the 7-35? @35 the glass was not as good as the 525 yes I know 25 vrs 35. But again, lets let all the differences in these "excellent- glassed" scopes out of the question for one minute. From my angle, the thread started with chasing the very lest important feature at this level of optic, into the dirt.
For roof top, tank trap etc stuff the FOV was super rough for me on the 7-35 and the parallax while it worked; I could not look at the knob, set before a stage to good midpoint and have good results. It was best adjusted without the scale under the time clock.
I dial down is to see a few targets or at least find them super fast. 7x on the 3-35 seems to have about the same FOV as the 525i at 14-15x.
Glass to me is slightly better in the 7-35 than the 5-25 ATACR. Illya says the 7-35 is a new optomechanical design so it makes sense. I don’t ever zoom in or out on stages. Set to about 12x and shoot everything from 300 out to 1k that way.
Shoot with both eyes open, use my left eye to find the target and right eye to bring the rifle to the target.
If you can’t shoot with both eyes open (you really should train for it, helps a lot) then look directly over your elevation turret and point it at your target. Then get back into your scope and I promise you’re pretty close to it every time.
Focused was a little pickier than I’d like yes I have to agree there. Especially with major swings in distance between targets. But it’s a product of the scope I suppose. That’s one of the most underrated aspects of the TT, and the AMG, set them on infinity parallax and the TT is basically in focus from 200yards to everything. The AMG is about the same, 250ish and it’s always in focus.
Same here, set to 12x/ 500 yard ish and never look at them again. In the shoot, I rarely touch any knob of scope for most stages. I have some words from OP that NF 7-35 came out very positive. Maybe not better than TT but he likes its optical. I'll stop here and let OP come in when he has time.
I think the thread certainly has pissed off many Kahles owners. I would have same feelings when my shit got beat down on Internet. There is belief that through scope photo does not matter, I found that statement to be both true and false - crappy photo does not count. Photos taken with good gear and best effort are certainly helpful. I dont have a place to go in shop and bring those high $ scopes out in field to test before I buy, the photo plus some trusted people are pretty much what I can rely on. I certainly appreciate OP's effort, long drive, lots of $$$ and time to share his opinion with great pictures. We all have bias, and different ways to express our thoughts - I have no problems with strong words, and I really need information and physical data to help myself make a decision. Big thanks to OP and most folks in the thread, it's a bumpy one but helpful to me.
Last edited:
Both my 5 to 25 7-35 night force scopes were fine scopes.
I shoot stages at 15-12 and have so on all my scopes except the 7-35. It is just way too tight at 15x for me.
The information I’m giving is real the fov on my 7-35 was around 14’ at 100 on 7x
Anybody can make anything work. But why not choose the best tool for the job? ELR scope, great fit; Positional scope maybe not.
Having owned every scope in these discussions except the TT and Minox,
(I might at some point) I don’t tie my feelings to a scope.
I shoot stages at 15-12 and have so on all my scopes except the 7-35. It is just way too tight at 15x for me.
The information I’m giving is real the fov on my 7-35 was around 14’ at 100 on 7x
Anybody can make anything work. But why not choose the best tool for the job? ELR scope, great fit; Positional scope maybe not.
Having owned every scope in these discussions except the TT and Minox,
(I might at some point) I don’t tie my feelings to a scope.
Despite an optical engineer stating that taking photos through the scope even as good as the ones in the OP are, are not representative enough to judge the optic? The k525i isn't without fault not at all definitely a step in the right direction for Kahles in many regards, but the constrained FOV and small DOF are a problem IMHO. Eyebox is a pretty large step backwards also.
Where i take issue is that some will take it as gospel which is doing a disservice to themselves having never been behind the optic, if they were considering it in the first place. I can pull an example of my Mark 5HD that looks better than any photo i took with the Kahles this past weekend and can tell you with certainty that the Kahles has better contrast and resolution. That's the point. Though again his model could very well look like shit and to that end i understand his frustration dropping 3k on a defective product.
Maybe i'll get it side by side against a PMII or ZP5 and have a change of heart though, who knows.
Based on my conversation with OP, he is not frustrated at all - he is not a person cares about 3 grand. He just uses strong expression, kind of different culture/style to talk about something, I think we all have met person like that in real life.
Try ZP5 or TT out, I think you will see the difference and change of heart coming... Kahles vs SB can be a wash if not thinking about the cost, which most people dont worry if they will keep the scope for a good time.
Try ZP5 or TT out, I think you will see the difference and change of heart coming... Kahles vs SB can be a wash if not thinking about the cost, which most people dont worry if they will keep the scope for a good time.
I'd expect a difference from TT given the near fabled status around those scopes and especially considering the price increase. The ZP5 i expect it to compare well to outside of FOV, DOF, and the eyebox. So in your opinion the S&B and Kahles are similar?
If you are asking about optical performance between Sb 5-25 and K5-25, my personal view is that SB wins hands down. Like many others have said, optical can be the least important thing for the scope, so very valid choice for many folks to prefer K5-25 over SB.
I don't disagree just curious. I chose Kahles for the SKMR3 though i do like the glass myself it's been the best I've used thus far at least with any considerable amount of time. I need to get them beside some competitors in it's range. I could never go S&B just on reticle alone. Used to be most would say the 624i and PMII were neck and neck, least that's what i would always hear.
Honestly everyone always says "it's" as good as the S&B. But really it seems they should be saying it is almost as good.
I no longer had my S&B by the time I had my hands on a K525. But again at this level of optic there are tradeoffs, as with anything, but most people might say the tradeoffs aren't an issue for them. I guess it all depends on your angle.
My S&Bs, had several features that I didn't like, reticle, turret feel/funky locks, harder to read marks, illumination where I don't like it and I was on the wrong end of a very limited warrantee. It was never the glass that kept me away from another S&B, but scopes came out with feature I liked much better.
We are talking about top tier scopes here so differences are small by nature. It’s kind of asking do we think US or Russia has the most powerful nuclear bomb. Yes there is difference but either will be more than enough to erase a city. For our shooting I will doubt either SB or Kahles has much to to with you or myself did not rank first position in the match.
I guess it's just by nature one would expect results from a scope manufacturer releasing a new optic in that tier to best a design that has been around for as long as i can remember getting into this game. Admittedly i'm young so it's going on 11 years now.
Oh i agree at the level of quality we're talking about it's a moot point it's not going to make us miss. It just expectations versus reality when picking these optics apart comparing them to one another.
Great points wjm308. I would further add that we know competition shooters use (damn near abuse, ever so gently, of course) their gear. So when it is mentioned that many competitors use xyz product, it is not necessarily to indicate that product as being superior, but rather, it helps others determine what works/does not work; what products can stand up to actual fielding and use.
As far as saying the K525 "sucks," I got nothing. In fact, I've heard it all now and can die a satisfied man.
I'm the first to admit that I am a huge Kahles fan; I own several of their scopes. I think the compromise between the glass quality, turrets, zero stop mechanics, illumination, eye box, reticle options, and most importantly, robustness, make it one of the most valuable scopes in the market presently. Personally, I think NF, TT and S&B MAY have Kahles beat in the resolution and clarity department, but guess who's got the much better reticle options? My emphasis on the word "may" is due to the simple fact that arguing class clarity, resolution and all that other shit is flat out moot. Everybody's eyes are so different that it doesn't make sense to argue that one point, particularly when having this discussion with the "top tier" optics brands. It's really splitting hairs.
Shit, on a bright, sunny day, looking through a fucking Simmons looks fantastic.
To the gentleman sweating the purchase of his new K525, it's all good brother. You've got yourself an excellent optic. I'll be on my way to grabbing one or two more for myself (I only have 624's).
will review it alone with my new zp5. So this weekend NF beast, 7-35, tt525, SB PM2, Minox ZP5. I shoot my 7-35 last weekend but did not take the photo, but i am very happy about it not bad for a 2900 scope. On 25x the image is as good or even better than SB at 25x. The even better is the mag after 25x is usable(you know what I mean) And that day I shoot until dusk I can say the 7-35 beat the SB in low light. I think 7-35 is good scope may be like somebody said lacking some " tactical cool" radical LOL. Mil-C works fine for me LOL.
Last edited:
Finally got to zero k525i on my DTS .308 today. All I can say is Mike and the others who talked me into this scope were right on the money. I also took Franks advice and switched to mil/mil. And all I can say Is WOW. This scope,for me, was one of the easiest to get behind and adjust parallax focus and shoot. I had literally a one shot zero. I will post a picture sometime tomorrow. Took the first shot looked at the reticale and made one adjustment and shot a 3 shot group at about a 1/2” or better. I had another instructor with me and he to could not believe it if he hadn’t seen it for himself. He is now looking at the scope not only for himself but for his team as well.
FALex you are so right I shouldn’t have got caught up in this post and thanks for the incurrigment.
To all that all looking at this scope look at it for yourself and make up your own mind. It is what I was looking for in a scope for me.
FALex you are so right I shouldn’t have got caught up in this post and thanks for the incurrigment.
To all that all looking at this scope look at it for yourself and make up your own mind. It is what I was looking for in a scope for me.
I'm glad you're enjoying your purchase, if your team wants them we will gladly hook them up as well.
A couple of comments:
1. this has actually been a good thread
2. The narrow FOV and a bit finicky parallax is the only reason I didn't like the 7-35
3. The ZP5 Glass I agree and I love the reticle ~ but the damn rev indicator cam is weird as shit and the warrantee seem skimpy almost as bad as the old S&B policy of 2 years -- ya, I know free labor, but that will not get you a new scope if the worst happens.
In the 3K price range the Minox and Kahles are both really worth looking at.
Can you send me the actual warranty link? I read the warranty info in their included literature- but it was sn early release
My shitty kahles will be here tomorrow.
I won’t have all of them next to it, just a Schmidt 5-25, but in the last year I’ve run:
Vortex AMG ebr 7 and ebr7b
Atacr 4-16 and 7-35
Minox ZP5
Two Schmidt 5-25
Vortex Razor gen ii
Leupold Mark 5 5-25 CCH
Sig tango 6
And I’ve spent time behind most other popular high end optics other than TT.
Thus far the only “wow” I’ve had is the amg for lowlight considering the 50mm objective and the minox for overal glass.
The rest were very good optics (possibly minus the tango 6). They just didn’t “wow” me.
I’m not the best at describing glass (I don’t even notice CA unless it’s shown to me), and I focus more on the reticle, ergonomics, and eybox. But I’ll try to give my thoughts once I get the 525i.
Also have a Schmidt h2cmr on the way as well. The windage holds are very similar to the skmr3. I figured it would be easy transitioning from the two.
I won’t have all of them next to it, just a Schmidt 5-25, but in the last year I’ve run:
Vortex AMG ebr 7 and ebr7b
Atacr 4-16 and 7-35
Minox ZP5
Two Schmidt 5-25
Vortex Razor gen ii
Leupold Mark 5 5-25 CCH
Sig tango 6
And I’ve spent time behind most other popular high end optics other than TT.
Thus far the only “wow” I’ve had is the amg for lowlight considering the 50mm objective and the minox for overal glass.
The rest were very good optics (possibly minus the tango 6). They just didn’t “wow” me.
I’m not the best at describing glass (I don’t even notice CA unless it’s shown to me), and I focus more on the reticle, ergonomics, and eybox. But I’ll try to give my thoughts once I get the 525i.
Also have a Schmidt h2cmr on the way as well. The windage holds are very similar to the skmr3. I figured it would be easy transitioning from the two.
How did that turret cam to indicate revs on the ZP5 feel? I only shot it a short time and actually it really was not in play. But I could not seem to manage a click or two adjustment once the cam was initiated and stay on the gun.
Do you still have the ZP?
Nope, @Dthomas3523 and I traded. He gets my shitty k525 and I get his ZP5.
I won’t have anything comparable to benchmark it to, but I’ll post my impressions on the ZP5 much like I did with the K525.
I’ll have the ZP5 in hand tomorrow to comment on the turrets but so far @CSTactical ’s YouTube video is the best:
CSTactical ZP5 Turrets
As funds permit I will be getting another ZP5 or K525 soon.
Last edited:
I am in the same boat. I get another K525 or if I can get over a few of my perceptions issues (true or not) of the warrantee card I read, the turret indicator thing and the in market parallax (I know distance vary atn my arn’t accurate on most scopes, but I use markers to preset ball park for a stage) I might do the better glass in the MP5
I believe the newest Zp5's don't have it. My 3-15x is normal going into the second rev. Suprised me at first because I thought they just decreased the tension on the newest ones.
The warranty was a huge question mark for me too. After doing some research, as long as you have a warranty card you are the original owner. Lifetime for the original owner, 10-15yrs extension for the second owner. The warranties are handled by a Blaser USA in Texas and turn around times have reduced from what they were with NH.
As far as marked parallax I foresaw this being an issue, until I did some digging and talked to a couple shooters using them. The Minox is mostly parallax free past 400 yards. So like using an AMG in competitions you can leave it on one parallax setting for a stage and have no issues by just using the average distance and setting the parallax to that.
Ya a sharpie would probably solve my A.D.D. issues on that end
Good news on the Warrantee - The warrantee card I read was a bit early on and I had a hard time really believing what I was reading.. One more obstacle removed to less $ in my pocket.. dang I hate the Hide.Mine was with the updated turrets and my ZP5 had it. It wasn’t bad, but it’s there. Wasn’t a big deal.
If they have turrets without the cam on the 2nd rev, it’s somwthing entirely new within the last month or two.
We worked with Blaser and Minox to improve their warranty from what it was originally...
https://www.minox.com/fileadmin/downloads/Warranty/MINOX_Total_Coverage_Warranty_07_2017.pdf
Similar threads
