• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes K525 SUCKS !!!!! SB PM2 5-25 vs K525 VS TT525P

#151
Dthomas3523 said:
One of you guys that has a 525i and hates it, trade me for my Schmidt.

Also, gonna need some cash on top since the K25i is so shitty.
Click to expand...

Could trade but not gonna add cash since the K525i is so shitty and expensive...just kidding.

I like the LRR reticle, would you mind talking a bit why you dont like that scope or reason behind the trade, have you used/seen friend's K525 and liked it more? For the record I'm not on either side, just want to see more opinions and of course, pictures...
 
#152
cageli said:
Could trade but not gonna add cash since the K525i is so shitty and expensive...just kidding.

I like the LRR reticle, would you mind talking a bit why you dont like that scope or reason behind the trade, have you used/seen friend's K525 and liked it more? For the record I'm not on either side, just want to see more opinions and of course, pictures...
Click to expand...

I like the LRR Reticle quite a bit. It’s main use is on my Vudoo as the thin reticle/dot is very, very good for precision .22 (and I’m sure for centerfire when you are trying to be very precise).

Reasons I’m considering changing to a 525i:

1: (almost the biggest), I don’t have one and I have this sickness where I like to try as many optics as possible.

2: I get “bored” and like to change things up

3: I want to be able to run it in PRS and .22 matches. With the LRR, I occasionally lose the very fine reticle on dark steel targets. It also doesn’t have a wind tree. Also, the 525i will focus down to 20m. So it’s one of the few high end optics that will suit my needs for a .22

4: I find the ergonomics of left side windage and ambidextrous parallax very nice

5: I really like the SKMR3. The dot is small enough to use with precision .22 and acts almost like an open center on large steel targets

6: I’m not super crazy about the MTC turrets. They are awesome for high stress or low light. But not my cup of tea for prs. I’d love them on a duty rifle though

7: luckily for me, unless I make myself look for it or someone points it out, I don’t notice CA in optics


I like my Schmidt very much and if a buyer or trade doesn’t come along, I’ll continue using it. All my issues are 1st world problems.

Just to note, I think my Minox ZP5 blows the Schmidt away optically (for my eyes). If it focused at 25yds or less, I’d own more than one. The Minox stays in my centerfire 6creed rig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CSTactical, TheMammoth, blbennett1288 and 3 others
#153
Dthomas3523 said:
I like the LRR Reticle quite a bit. It’s main use is on my Vudoo as the thin reticle/dot is very, very good for precision .22 (and I’m sure for centerfire when you are trying to be very precise).

Reasons I’m considering changing to a 525i:

1: (almost the biggest), I don’t have one and I have this sickness where I like to try as many optics as possible.

2: I get “bored” and like to change things up

3: I want to be able to run it in PRS and .22 matches. With the LRR, I occasionally lose the very fine reticle on dark steel targets. It also doesn’t have a wind tree. Also, the 525i will focus down to 20m. So it’s one of the few high end optics that will suit my needs for a .22

4: I find the ergonomics of left side windage and ambidextrous parallax very nice

5: I really like the SKMR3. The dot is small enough to use with precision .22 and acts almost like an open center on large steel targets

6: I’m not super crazy about the MTC turrets. They are awesome for high stress or low light. But not my cup of tea for prs. I’d love them on a duty rifle though

7: luckily for me, unless I make myself look for it or someone points it out, I don’t notice CA in optics


I like my Schmidt very much and if a buyer or trade doesn’t come along, I’ll continue using it. All my issues are 1st world problems.

Just to note, I think my Minox ZP5 blows the Schmidt away optically (for my eyes). If it focused at 25yds or less, I’d own more than one. The Minox stays in my centerfire 6creed rig.
Click to expand...

Thank you, very well said. I also own ZP5 and completely agree with you. I guess TT could be slightly better but ZP5 is perfect for me now so I'm not going to look through TT for both good and bad.

I think you made the point that every scope is different, and it's important to find the one that suits you the most. And of course gotta try all of them :ROFLMAO:
 
#154
Msaon308 said:
First, I do not make money by selling scopes. Second, I find you mentioned "Mike" "CS Tactical" many times. LOL, no wonder you will be so mad because I speak my experience with K525. Third, I have been work with a lot of optic dealers but you and "mike" "CS tactical" just pushed the marketing to another level. You won! the K525 is the best nothing wrong with it. Are you happy now?
Click to expand...
I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but I’m doubting the benefit of my response, but you have validated my point on your maturity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty8404, TheMammoth, Bender and 1 other person
#155
lawofsavage said:
I hate to be an ass here as I agree with what you’re trying to say I think but you’re argument is self-defeating.

You’re saying that: [(through the scope pictures are anecdotal evidence) + (anecdotal evidence is of little to no value in evaluating optics)] = Therefore, through the scope picture are of little to no evidence in evaluating optics.

You can’t then use then use anecdotal evidence to bolster the opinion about an optic’s performance if anecdotal evidence means little to nothing.

People don’t have to have Ph.D’s in stats and don’t have to be a SME in optics to post here for fucks sake. It’s the internet, I assume everyone is posting from their mom’s basement naked using their tiny Cheeto dust encrusted fingers to type unless I’ve met them before.

I certainly get the point that we want to encourage as many manufacturers and industry insiders to participate but I don’t think blindly taking up for manufacturers benefits anyone in the long run unless the goal is to end up like the older gun rags once they became obvious shills for the manufacturers and lacked any real substance.

In my opinion, the above is what opened the door for a place like this in the first place. To me, what I like aboit it is, there’s a a group of knowledgeable people to use as a resource for field type precision rifle stuff or comp stuff. And, that group of

In my opinion, that is the reason this place grew on the first place, their certainly weren’t shitloads of people buying S&B’s and custom precision rifles 15 years ago like they are now and I think this place has a lot to do with it for the fact that there are posts exactly like this where people that actually buy shit and use their shit give their opinion about it and everyone else is free to infer whatever the hell they want from that.

I certainly agree with people being able to say they haven’t had the same experience as the op but I couldn’t Help being a dick with the invalid argument structure above as I’ve had a full day of dealing with the most annoying mouth breathers and haven’t had enough alcohol yet to be pleasant again but my apologies if I was rude, boring, too boring, or all the above haha.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but either way i'm not giving a definitive review on the optic, i've not condemned nor refuted what he said just said i've heard otherwise. Anecdotal? Yes completely but i've not pointed to it as an ultimatum of the optics performance. I stand by what i said. You can’t take a through scope picture of an optic to heart. Which is basically what ILya clarified. Never once did i say mason was wrong. I repeated that multiple times. I have no reason to doubt him. But for every 10 people the view the thread, see the image, think that kahles is shit because of the image are doing themselves a disservice if they wanted that optic in the first place. Point being proven that a user just questioned his purchase of his k525 based on the OP's image and was worried he'd wasted his money, having not even laid eyes on the optic. My point was if you’re making $3000 optic purchases based on someone’s picture of said optic you’re going about this the wrong way. Sure that might come off as me taking up for kahles because i own two of them. I’ll be the first to agree with mason if mine is shit and share his sentiment. As i said multiple times about the k624i.

I do get where you’re coming from and apologize for the invalid argument structure even if i don't see it the same way. Don’t think you were rude or anything. Plus as you said it’s the internet it doesn’t affect your or i regardless. I also am not trying to convey that I’m some expert. Just simply pointing out that making judgement on an optic from a picture through the scope is just as redundant as buying one based on joblo telling you it’s better than brand X without having been behind the damn thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMammoth and DellaDog
#157
I debated whether or not to upload the pictures of 100, 900, and 1000 yard targets due to people misinterpreting them and thinking that is what it actually looks like through the K525. I ultimately decided that I would filter through the 50+ pictures and post what most represented what I saw CA and IQ wise. I think after what @wjm308 and @koshkin said that getting an actual representation of glass IQ by picture is next to impossible due to all the factors and that the only way is to get behind the glass. Therefore, we can all agree that my methods were less than ideal; freehand with an iphone6s.

100 yards x12, x15, x18, x25 power
Out of all the 100 yard pictures with the Snipers Hide Online Training Dot Drill target I did not have one which actually represented what I saw with my eye. I believe this was due to being off centered with the camera. I'll just leave it at that.

900 yards, x25 power, parallax between 800-1000
As previously stated the IQ is not accurately represented as the reticle is in focus and the image behind out of focus. I had no problems seeing the red spray paint drip-age on the targets, I had no problem seeing blades of grass, I had no problem seeing a yellow butterfly move across the sight picture while I was attempting to take a picture, I had no problem seeing who did a good job spray painting the targets vs poor job lol. It was a fairly overcast day but the image is still extremely bright. The CA is indicative of what I saw with my naked eyes. Between 4-4.2mils left at the bottom of the 66% target CA is apparent. Also at 5.2-5.4mils right on the right side of the Plate CA is apparent. You might say you see some CA on the middle target at the bottom, I go back and forth as to whether I see it in the picture, but I most certainly did not see it through the scope. This represents what "I" see the majority of the time with the K525. CA is apparent on the outer edges with proper eye placement.
900yds.jpg


1000 yards, x25 power, parallax between 800-1000
As previously stated the IQ is not accurately represented as the reticle is in focus and the image behind out of focus, but I think this image better depicts the IQ, but still doesn't do the K525 justice. I had no problems seeing the impacts on the 12" plate between 4.7-5mils right. I had no problem seeing the tread on the tires, spray paint cans, weeds, debris, spray paint run, etc at 1000 yards. CA is apparent in reality around 6.2L, 3.8L, 2.4L. There looks to be some CA in the picture on the fullsize target's shoulders from 0.2-0.6L, I honestly did not see this through the scope and believe this to be a figment of the background. The target at 7R also displayed CA
1000yds2.jpg

1000 yards, x25 power, parallax between 800-1000
Same comments as above regarding IQ. The right side of the image is dark due to me doing this offhand with a phone, but I think this picture best represents the CA I see when looking through the scope. Nothing for 3mils left or right. As long as you are centered up CA is not present. CA is apparent at 3.2mils (slight) and 6.8mils.
1000yds1.jpg


Overall, I am impressed with the K525 and it is only limited by my shooting skills. I have not argued that it is better than the TT, Henny, or PM2 glass. I argue it is a better package due to its features: turret feel, SKMR3, LSW, Ambi Parallax, compact, and weight. I just wanted to put everyone at ease that is in the process or considering purchasing a K525, that you will in fact not be disappointed. I spent my hard earned money on this and looking at the listings in the PX it will hold its value.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yowzilla, CSTactical, tna9001 and 1 other person
#158
Msaon308 said:
First, I do not make money by selling scopes. Second, I find you mentioned "Mike" "CS Tactical" many times. LOL, no wonder you will be so mad because I speak my experience with K525. Third, I have been work with a lot of optic dealers but you and "mike" "CS tactical"
Click to expand...


Dude you’re deranged. People reference Mike and other optics sales reps like Doug and Scott because they’re active here and a good source of information and deals.

Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMC mustang, CSTactical, 5RWill and 1 other person
#159
Gtscotty said:
I'm in the wrong business, how does one accumulate so much disposable income without, at some point, having to learn how to spell words like "they" and "some"?

I do appreciate the pictures though.
Click to expand...
I ‘ve read all posts under this thread and found useful info from both sides. But yours is the most irrelevant and inferior one. Does English spelling have anything to do with the quality of K525? This is about scopes and no spelling bee. If showing presumptuousness and vulgarities can make you feel better and put you back to the “right business”, go ahead, you have your rights.
 
#160
BlackRock601 said:
I ‘ve read all posts under this thread and found useful info from both sides. But yours is the most irrelevant and inferior one. Does English spelling have anything to do with the quality of K525? This is about scopes and no spelling bee. If showing presumptuousness and vulgarities can make you feel better and put you back to the “right business”, go ahead, you have your rights.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that this post triggered you, but the OP that it was aimed at could not care less, water off a duck's back. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he'd be a lot cooler to get a beer with. My deepest and sincerest apologies for the damage to your feelings. Please, continue with the scope discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sylvertiger, kingston, TheMammoth and 1 other person
#161
Gtscotty said:
It's interesting that this post triggered you, but the OP that it was aimed at could not care less, water off a duck's back. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he'd be a lot cooler to get a beer with. My deepest and sincerest apologies for the damage to your feelings. Please, continue with the scope discussion.
Click to expand...
The fact that the OP does not care does not make your irrelevant comment relevant.

Apology accepted. Keep up the good work and talk about scopes please.
 
#164
blbennett1288 said:
I debated whether or not to upload the pictures of 100, 900, and 1000 yard targets due to people misinterpreting them and thinking that is what it actually looks like through the K525. I ultimately decided that I would filter through the 50+ pictures and post what most represented what I saw CA and IQ wise. I think after what @wjm308 and @koshkin said that getting an actual representation of glass IQ by picture is next to impossible due to all the factors and that the only way is to get behind the glass. Therefore, we can all agree that my methods were less than ideal; freehand with an iphone6s.

100 yards x12, x15, x18, x25 power
Out of all the 100 yard pictures with the Snipers Hide Online Training Dot Drill target I did not have one which actually represented what I saw with my eye. I believe this was due to being off centered with the camera. I'll just leave it at that.

900 yards, x25 power, parallax between 800-1000
As previously stated the IQ is not accurately represented as the reticle is in focus and the image behind out of focus. I had no problems seeing the red spray paint drip-age on the targets, I had no problem seeing blades of grass, I had no problem seeing a yellow butterfly move across the sight picture while I was attempting to take a picture, I had no problem seeing who did a good job spray painting the targets vs poor job lol. It was a fairly overcast day but the image is still extremely bright. The CA is indicative of what I saw with my naked eyes. Between 4-4.2mils left at the bottom of the 66% target CA is apparent. Also at 5.2-5.4mils right on the right side of the Plate CA is apparent. You might say you see some CA on the middle target at the bottom, I go back and forth as to whether I see it in the picture, but I most certainly did not see it through the scope. This represents what "I" see the majority of the time with the K525. CA is apparent on the outer edges with proper eye placement.
View attachment 6955199

1000 yards, x25 power, parallax between 800-1000
As previously stated the IQ is not accurately represented as the reticle is in focus and the image behind out of focus, but I think this image better depicts the IQ, but still doesn't do the K525 justice. I had no problems seeing the impacts on the 12" plate between 4.7-5mils right. I had no problem seeing the tread on the tires, spray paint cans, weeds, debris, spray paint run, etc at 1000 yards. CA is apparent in reality around 6.2L, 3.8L, 2.4L. There looks to be some CA in the picture on the fullsize target's shoulders from 0.2-0.6L, I honestly did not see this through the scope and believe this to be a figment of the background. The target at 7R also displayed CA
View attachment 6955209
1000 yards, x25 power, parallax between 800-1000
Same comments as above regarding IQ. The right side of the image is dark due to me doing this offhand with a phone, but I think this picture best represents the CA I see when looking through the scope. Nothing for 3mils left or right. As long as you are centered up CA is not present. CA is apparent at 3.2mils (slight) and 6.8mils.
View attachment 6955210

Overall, I am impressed with the K525 and it is only limited by my shooting skills. I have not argued that it is better than the TT, Henny, or PM2 glass. I argue it is a better package due to its features: turret feel, SKMR3, LSW, Ambi Parallax, compact, and weight. I just wanted to put everyone at ease that is in the process or considering purchasing a K525, that you will in fact not be disappointed. I spent my hard earned money on this and looking at the listings in the PX it will hold its value.
Click to expand...
This is an only real useful reply so far........ My K525's CA look so bad is because there are some big white 1000yd targets in the back. But man the photo does not lie and LOL k525 do look bad. But like you said I am a poor guy so I like to spend my money on something better than this such as 2099 SB pm2. You can blow your money all you want, it is your chose.
image1.jpeg
 
#168
Msaon308 said:
This is an only real useful reply so far........ My K525's CA look so bad is because there are some big white 1000yd targets in the back. But man the photo does not lie and LOL k525 do look bad. But like you said I am a poor guy so I like to spend my money on something better than this such as 2099 SB pm2. You can blow your money all you want, it is your chose. View attachment 6955241
Click to expand...

I am not saying you did not see what you saw, but I purposefully did not post my 100yard pictures because they looked like your picture, which is contradictory to what I saw behind the scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan 534
#169
I got a K525 from CS Tactical a few weeks ago and it’s amazing coming from an older Leupold VXIII, I also appreciate the pictures and insight on the other scopes too. There are a lot of good choices and wish I could try them all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: CSTactical
#170
Msaon308 said:
First, I do not make money by selling scopes. Second, I find you mentioned "Mike" "CS Tactical" many times. LOL, no wonder you will be so mad because I speak my experience with K525. Third, I have been work with a lot of optic dealers but you and "mike" "CS tactical" just pushed the marketing to another level. You won! the K525 is the best nothing wrong with it. Are you happy now?
Click to expand...


Wait, how did we do what you're claiming???
 
#171
I usually don't even read threads that are titled like this one. I did choose to read this thread because the K525 is fairly new in the marketplace. Testing like this, that is done without controls, may produce an opinion, but does not produce accurate data.

I do not own a K 525. I do own 9 Nightforce, 3 Khales, one S&B, 2 Sightron, one SWFA, one Trijion, 3 Weaver rimfire, and 3 Zeiss. Having several scopes does not make me an expert. There are things I like, and don't like, about each of my scopes, but none of them suck (in my opinion). Threads like these are generally more about opinion, than scientific test results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stickshift, USMC mustang, Glassaholic and 2 others
#172
Msaon308 said:
yep TT so far so good but 1k more than SB for shooer only shooting under 1000yd is a bit of over kill. I will invest that 1k in a nice spotting scope.
Click to expand...

I agree with you based on my recent experience. I went to a class recently where we shot out to 1300 yards. I had my NF 7-35 and the instructor had one rifle with the TT on it. It was the first time I ever got to see and try one in person. I have to admit that the turrets are nice. With both scopes set to 20X, the image at 1,000 yards as compared to my NF was a little brighter but not a hands down winner. At 1,300 yards the difference was about the same. I wish I had brought my S&B 5-25 as well. I have come close to buying the TT a couple of times and now I am glad I did not. It is a beautiful scope but it is not worth the price they are asking for it...at least for me
 
#173
Falar said:
I still want to see one of the new gen Kahles mounted to a rig and tested for tracking and parallax issues.
Click to expand...
Nik H said:
I agree with you based on my recent experience. I went to a class recently where we shot out to 1300 yards. I had my NF 7-35 and the instructor had one rifle with the TT on it. It was the first time I ever got to see and try one in person. I have to admit that the turrets are nice. With both scopes set to 20X, the image at 1,000 yards as compared to my NF was a little brighter but not a hands down winner. At 1,300 yards the difference was about the same. I wish I had brought my S&B 5-25 as well. I have come close to buying the TT a couple of times and now I am glad I did not. It is a beautiful scope but it is not worth the price they are asking for it...at least for me
Click to expand...
Specially with limited reticle they offer..i sold couple TT here and few sb with g2xr ...those reticle dont do much help with our type of shooting
 
#174
bjay said:
Specially with limited reticle they offer..i sold couple TT here and few sb with g2xr ...those reticle dont do much help with our type of shooting
Click to expand...

S&B always is behind with the reticle but I actually like the GenII XR. That is what is on my 5-25. It isn't the best for PRS but my S&B sits on my custom Anschutz 64 MPR. I like the reticle more for that kind of shooting.

My NF 7-35 has a MIL-C which is really nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjay
#179
Msaon308 said:
This is an only real useful reply so far........ My K525's CA look so bad is because there are some big white 1000yd targets in the back. But man the photo does not lie and LOL k525 do look bad. But like you said I am a poor guy so I like to spend my money on something better than this such as 2099 SB pm2. You can blow your money all you want, it is your chose. View attachment 6955241
Click to expand...


I could take pictures that made a $50 Crossman scope from Walmart look better than any NF, S&B, TT, Kahles, Minox, or anything else if I wanted.
 
#185
Spent four hours behind mine today going back and for between it, the k318i, and the V6 conquest. Should've brought my USO but it isn't mounted on anything at the moment. CA has been dramatically reduced from the 624i. Granted it was mostly overcast but for the bit that i had some sunlight it was very good. Reminds me of the Mark 5 it seems extremely dependent on cheekweld. The eyebox is tight near max mag, no getting around it. Reminds me of the Mark 5. Mirage was a PITA today but when it seemed to clear, resolution, contrast, and edge to edge clarity were there. DOF seems pretty shallow to me though and that's probably my biggest complaint along with the eyebox and FOV. Which given it's size makes some sense. I really wish they had retained those two attributes from the 624i. I did the best i could to get a picture with a decent camera and my phone but it's freaking hard and don't feel they're at all representative of the IQ. I'd like to get it beside Minox, S&B, and TT to see if they would persuade me differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMammoth and Glassaholic
#187
I am in the south lobby right now.
5RWill said:
Spent four hours behind mine today going back and for between it, the k318i, and the V6 conquest. Should've brought my USO but it isn't mounted on anything at the moment. CA has been dramatically reduced from the 624i. Granted it was mostly overcast but for the bit that i had some sunlight it was very good. Reminds me of the Mark 5 it seems extremely dependent on cheekweld. The eyebox is tight near max mag, no getting around it. Reminds me of the Mark 5. Mirage was a PITA today but when it seemed to clear, resolution, contrast, and edge to edge clarity were there. DOF seems pretty shallow to me though and that's probably my biggest complaint along with the eyebox and FOV. Which given it's size makes some sense. I really wish they had retained those two attributes from the 624i. I did the best i could to get a picture with a decent camera and my phone but it's freaking hard and don't feel they're at all representative of the IQ. I'd like to get it beside Minox, S&B, and TT to see if they would persuade me differently.
Click to expand...
So in a nutshell, your current assessment is that K5-25 is very close to MK5 from optical perspective, given Kahles is shorter. Did I get it right, or misunderstood your review?
 
#188
cageli said:
I am in the south lobby right now.

So in a nutshell, your current assessment is that K5-25 is very close to MK5 from optical perspective, given Kahles is shorter. Did I get it right, or misunderstood your review?
Click to expand...

I was meaning to convey that the eyebox and CA control are similar in regards to both being tight at 25x and doing a good job of managing CA. Though not devoid of it especially once off axis.

Resolution and contrast are superior to the mark 5 hands down, don’t really recall DOF issues with the Mark 5 but id venture to guess it wasn’t as shallow as the K525. Also don’t know about low light performance of the k525 yet but my MK5 was phenomenal in that regard. 30 minutes after sunset i was staring at a doe at 1100yds on 9x where i could only make out her tail when she moved with my SN-3 at the time.

Out of the two new kahles i do think the k318i is a more impressive feat given it’s size. For an ultra short it is impeccable.
 
#189
197AF3E3-5505-4822-8B5A-165540CE527D.jpeg

BF71DEF8-C1AC-4455-A05D-5E0ADD86809B.jpeg

64397176-2593-4254-B708-3520B2B6334D.jpeg

Got My new NF7-35 Friday, Mounted on my 308 1:7 twist FUN GUN. When to my local 300yd range to zero. So far so good, no ca problem at all under 300yd? And I was able to get full 36 mil up use 20 moa base + 40 moa mount. That alone is very impressive . tomorrow I will take PM2, TT, NF 7-35, NF 5-25 to 1000 YD. Will keep you guys posted.
 
#190
Msaon308 said:
View attachment 6955838
View attachment 6955841
View attachment 6955842
Got My new NF7-35 Friday, Mounted on my 308 1:7 twist FUN GUN. When to my local 300yd range to zero. So far so good, no ca problem at all under 300yd? And I was able to get full 36 mil up use 20 moa base + 40 moa mount. That alone is very impressive . tomorrow I will take PM2, TT, NF 7-35, NF 5-25 to 1000 YD. Will keep you guys posted.
Click to expand...

How is the FOV in the NF; mine seemed very narrow even at 15x
 
#194
Dthomas3523 said:
I think I’m the only person online who isn’t blown away with the 7-35. Having the option to crank it up is nice, but I found everything else about it average.
Click to expand...

Your not the only one...I’ve always found night force average and nothing spectacular about the glass.

I have not looked through a 7-35 but I owned a 8-32 and a ATACR and have looked through 2 ATACR F-1s and a couple of S&Bs...I’ve also owned a minox 2 kahles 624s 2 gen2 razors and personally I still think the kahles is a better all round scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diver160651
#199
Diver160651 said:
You are not - I sold my NF 5-25 and NF 7-35..
Click to expand...

If they come out with a mil-c tree reticle, I may revisit the 7-35. To be fair, I’m looking at the k525i as the “entire package” having lsw, ambidextrous parallax, and 20m parallax, and skmr3.....I’ll deal with a little CA.

So the 7-35 offers a lot of top end magnification with a 10m or so focus. That’s pretty impressive. If it had a skmr3 or mr4, might have to deal with the overall “average” feeling I get from NF in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMammoth
#200
Dthomas3523 said:
If they come out with a mil-c tree reticle, I may revisit the 7-35. To be fair, I’m looking at the k525i as the “entire package” having lsw, ambidextrous parallax, and 20m parallax, and skmr3.....I’ll deal with a little CA.

So the 7-35 offers a lot of top end magnification with a 10m or so focus. That’s pretty impressive. If it had a skmr3 or mr4, might have to deal with the overall “average” feeling I get from NF in general.
Click to expand...
My new NF 7-35 is Mil-c ......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ModestMarksman
ATACR vs PM2 for SRSM2
Replies
10
Views
539
CSTactical
CSTactical
EazyID
Optics WTS: Schmidt PMII 5-25 T3 & Element Theos
Replies
6
Views
408
EazyID
EazyID
carbonbased
Rifle Scopes S&B 5-25 vs 3-20 US at 20x
Replies
25
Views
535
carbonbased
carbonbased
J
MK5-hd 5-25 vs 7-35×
Replies
10
Views
811
Denys
Denys
carbonbased
Flare / Glare / Backlit notes on 4 scopes (NX8 4-32, Razor Gen II 4.5-27, Razor LHT 4.5-22, S&B 5-25)
Replies
10
Views
436
carbonbased
carbonbased
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts