My scope background: I have owned and sold (thus can’t make accurate comparisons anymore b/c they aren’t in front of me): two minox zp5 mr4 5-25, two Schmidt PMII 5-25s H59, two Schmidt 5-20 H59 US, NF atacr 5-25 H59, Mil-C, and Tremor 3…the vortex gen 2 4.5-27, viper pst 6-24 gen, razor 5-20 gen ebr-2.
Scopes being reviewed
Please also note, I may use exaggerated language to prove a point; but, really the differences are miniscule. So miniscule I bet most people would not notice unless you had these scopes side by side to compare them too.
Please try to keep anecdotal sample size of 1-2 bad examples, etc out of the comments. In general all 3 of these scopes are incredibly robust and tough and won’t have to be sent into the factory for warranty work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time spent: THREE 60 min sessions (I did take small breaks in each session to reset my vision) in different lighting conditions, fully out doors (not looking through a window which isn’t accurate).
Environment: 4500 ft elevation, smoky environment from the forest fires with sun at 45 degrees, smoky environment with little to no direct sunlight and if so it’s overhead, clear skies (I had to wait for this one and for the winds to line up right). One can make the argument, the crappier the visibility may help differentiate the scopes qualities.
Evaluation objects: Telephone pole with surrounding large boulders. Distances confirmed by sig kilo 2000.
Telephone pole: 1061 yds
Boulder closest: 568 yds
Boulder farthest: 1073 yds
Evaluation method: All ocular focus was done prior to evaluation using standard methods of finding clearest reticle picture looking at a grey sky at mid and max power. Comparison at minimum power first (please note the atacr min is 7-35) with parallax set the same (infinity), comparison at 15 x parallax the same, comparison at 25x parallax the same. After comparing, I did whatever it took at 25x to get the best image quality possible including fine tuning parallax.
Categories of evaluation (Let’s get the quick ones out of the way) most of the evals are going to be spent talking about 15x (the most practical magnification for a lot of us whom compete), with some time at 25x.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this helps others when making decisions when purchasing riflescopes… if you have the means to do so, my advice would be to buy the scope you think you want. It’s difficult to go by online reviews and opinions.
Please don’t be dismayed by this review, I bet a lot of people will be very happy with the K525i; but, it is distinctly not as good as a Tangent Theta. My prediction, the K525 will be a very dominant scope in the competition circuits.
Scopes being reviewed
- Nightforce atacr 7-35 Tremor 3
- Tangent Theta 5-25p Gen2XR (TWO of them)
- Kahles K525i SKMR 3 LSW
Please also note, I may use exaggerated language to prove a point; but, really the differences are miniscule. So miniscule I bet most people would not notice unless you had these scopes side by side to compare them too.
Please try to keep anecdotal sample size of 1-2 bad examples, etc out of the comments. In general all 3 of these scopes are incredibly robust and tough and won’t have to be sent into the factory for warranty work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time spent: THREE 60 min sessions (I did take small breaks in each session to reset my vision) in different lighting conditions, fully out doors (not looking through a window which isn’t accurate).
Environment: 4500 ft elevation, smoky environment from the forest fires with sun at 45 degrees, smoky environment with little to no direct sunlight and if so it’s overhead, clear skies (I had to wait for this one and for the winds to line up right). One can make the argument, the crappier the visibility may help differentiate the scopes qualities.
Evaluation objects: Telephone pole with surrounding large boulders. Distances confirmed by sig kilo 2000.
Telephone pole: 1061 yds
Boulder closest: 568 yds
Boulder farthest: 1073 yds
Evaluation method: All ocular focus was done prior to evaluation using standard methods of finding clearest reticle picture looking at a grey sky at mid and max power. Comparison at minimum power first (please note the atacr min is 7-35) with parallax set the same (infinity), comparison at 15 x parallax the same, comparison at 25x parallax the same. After comparing, I did whatever it took at 25x to get the best image quality possible including fine tuning parallax.
Categories of evaluation (Let’s get the quick ones out of the way) most of the evals are going to be spent talking about 15x (the most practical magnification for a lot of us whom compete), with some time at 25x.
- Turret design and feel: Hands down Tangent Theta, I doubt most would argue with this. Between atacr 7-35 and the K525i, I feel they are about the same. This one is easy and I won’t spend time on this one.
- FOV: The numbers are on the websites. In general when looking at the telephone pole at surroundings, TT>NF>Kahles. At 25x mag, the Kahles reminded me of the reaction I had with the leupold mark5 5-25 HD… “huh, that’s kind of small”. This unfortunately is NOT splitting hairs. It’s noticeably smaller, and the published numbers don’t lie (TT is 5.2’@ 109 yd, NF 5-25 version is 4.92@ 100 yds, kahles 4.5@ 100yds). The NF 7-35 doesn’t publish the 25x FOV @ 100yds; but, I’ll tell you it’s an obvious difference when you look compared to the kahles, and I feel it’s obvious when you compare it to the tangent theta (the gross comparison then counting the mil hashmarks when looking at the same object... the entire telephone pole). FOV is a very difficult measurement to do correctly, it is not a linear relationship from what I read so you can’t extrapolate based on the NF published numbers for 7x and 35x.
- Edge to Edge clarity: TT = Kahles> NF at all mag ranges. I feel most can not argue this. It’s pretty obvious that the NF has very slight edge distortion at all mag ranges; but, it becomes more obvious at 15x and up. TT and Kahles are equal IMO.
- Eyebox: Kahles = NF, both are slightly better than tangent theta (yep I just said that) at all mag ranges. I can tell you starting at 12-15x on the TT the very top of the vertical reticle line is just out of view (not sure if this is intentional) and can be brought into view when you move your eye down ever so slightly (this occurs with BOTH of my TTs). At higher mag, I keep having that feel of not a full circle picture, and it’s at the top most area of the tangent theta scope. I took off the scope caps just to make sure. It’s still there adjusted eye relief, did everything…I still thought the TT eyebox was just every so slightly worse than the Kahles and NF.
- Parallax and mirage control: TT>NF>Kahles. I feel most would agree with me on this… TT wins hands down by an easily noticeable margin. I tried small increments of adjustment in the kahles and NF they are not as good at controlling mirage as the TT. I actually feel the NF does a slight better at mirage control with parallax than the kahles.
- Brightness: TT = Kahles>NF@ 15x magnification. Both TT and Kahles are better than the NF in regards to brightness and light gathering. There is ever so slightly a yellowish/orangish color difference with the NF. Maybe this could be categorized in the color/pop section. At 25x TT>Kahles>>NF. TT is ever so slightly brighter than the kahles at 25x (this was more evident on the smoky day), we are splitting fine lint hairs here. Both are notably brighter than the NF at 25x.
- Color contrast/Pop: Gross contrast Kahles = TT>NF @ 15x magnification (again both are slightly better than NF). Gross meaning when you quickly look at all the objects and surrounding they all look great in regards to color contrast; but, when you start looking closer at the small details of all the objects that’s micro-contrast. Micro-contrast TT>Kahles>NF @ 15x magnification (I feel most would agree with me on this one). TT>Kahles>NF @ 25x. So around 23x on the kahles, that’s when microcontrast starts to deteriorate. I looked at specific details on the boulders and on the telephone pole (a spike with a metal plate that had numbers on it). I did multiple adjustments (parallax, ocular, etc.) on the kahles to try to get this deterioration @ 25x to go away, and it would not. There is a slight deterioration in micro-contrast on the kahles starting at 23x and it’s notably worse than the TT @ 25x. I doubt most will disagree with me here as it’s fairly evident when comparing between the TT and Kahles. HOWEVER, my feeling is if you did not have the TT to directly compare to right there and then, most would not pick up on the deterioration of microcontrast in the Kahles (everything is relative).
- Clarity (this does overlap with contrast): Here we go… at 15x TT=Kahles>NF. At 25x TT>Kahles=NF. Similar to the above description, starting at 23x, clarity does drop off in the kahles, and I’ll tell you it’s quickly obvious at 25x. I tried adjusting the parallax and ocular on the kahles, ended up resetting the ocular focus on the reticle, and trying again. I also feel that most would agree with me on this one that at 25x the kahles clarity does drop off compared to the TT. In fact, @ 25x it’s similar to the NF @ 25x…. HOWEVER at 23x the kahles has more clarity than the nightforce 7-35 @ 25x (I’m explicitly stating the NF 7-35 model here to exemplify that it’s not even close to maxing out the max mag ), and FOV is similar IMO with the kahles @ 23x vs. atacr @ 25x. Some thoughts to stir the pot.
- Chromatic aberration: I saved the best for last. Disclosure, I HATE THE K624i b/c of this. I contacted Kahles, and they told me that is not a warranty reason. I was pissed and sold the scope on this forum. Let’s be clear here b/c I know fanboys will beat this point to death… CA doesn’t affect the scope function, and it doesn’t mean you won’t shoot well when you have CA. BUT in my mind a $3000k plus scope really should not have it or have little to none of it…. Got that off my chest. Luckily… the K525i does an awesome job at controlling CA compared to the k624i…. until 23x it really is not noticeable at all unless you look for it…b /c trust me it’s still there even on medium magnification, and it’s more noticeable when there is bad mirage. It’s best demonstrated when you are looking past a closer object at a farther object at 25x, and then focus your eye on the closer object. In my case, tree branches. Jimi Hendrix would be high as a kite with the K624i with the amount of purple haze he saw; but, it’s much less noticeable with the k525i. My money is that MOST people would not notice it on the k525i. I was specifically hunting for it b/c of my bad experience. Getting back to the comparison TT>Kahles=NF. BUT again, TT I just don’t see any CA… Kahles I barely saw some (but it’s sooo much better than the K624i). Nightforce, it’s there if you want to make it come out; but, it’s not that obvious compared to lesser quality glass scopes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this helps others when making decisions when purchasing riflescopes… if you have the means to do so, my advice would be to buy the scope you think you want. It’s difficult to go by online reviews and opinions.
Please don’t be dismayed by this review, I bet a lot of people will be very happy with the K525i; but, it is distinctly not as good as a Tangent Theta. My prediction, the K525 will be a very dominant scope in the competition circuits.
