Exactly this
What one person sees another doesn’t
That why I don’t get into these reviews
Folks talking about 1/64th of an inch?
Give me a fucking break
Rifle Scopes New for 2025, the Kahles K540i
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
What one person sees another doesn’t
That why I don’t get into these reviews
Folks talking about 1/64th of an inch?
Give me a fucking break
Every inch matters, ask your wife.
That’s what I’m saying. How does one notice a fisheye effect in 1/64” of edge real estate. Did you notice any?
Yes because no scope or bino review ever mentions edge to edge clarity. 
If seeing a dirty dishwater ring around the image in your scope doesn't bother, more power to you. For the rest of us paying retail Kahles can fix that stupid shit.
If seeing a dirty dishwater ring around the image in your scope doesn't bother, more power to you. For the rest of us paying retail Kahles can fix that stupid shit.
They don’t, it’s just saying something negative to say something negative.
There absolutely nothing wrong with these scopes, look too you tube and see what those guys like X ring, area 419 are saying
No, I'm not. Maybe everyone else received a perfect unit. But I very seriously doubt it.
Either way don't accuse me of some petty shit for being honest. If you want to simp or schill for Kahles that is your perogative but don't criticize for calling out a very clear defect in the design of these products.
@jthor, your comment is on point. I did not even realize the distortion was there until later in the day when I started to look at the entire glass from edge to edge.
@918v, you are right, it's almost unperceivable. I noticed it when closely examining the edges and moving the scope right to left across a white target against a dark background.
Another item that came to mind is the windage turret click spacing, which is tighter than I would like.
@918v, you are right, it's almost unperceivable. I noticed it when closely examining the edges and moving the scope right to left across a white target against a dark background.
Another item that came to mind is the windage turret click spacing, which is tighter than I would like.
No offense boss, but you just listed a dealer and a guy who relies on companies sending him stuff as your 'non-biased' support for your argument.
I have no dog in either side of the fight, so I could care less (and I don't like or hate Kahles). I'm just pointing out that there is a little more potential for bias in your two champions.
Have a good one.
I think some people really, really, really like a flat field view. Meaning there is no drop off of quality of an image as you go from center to edge.
You see this debated on camera forums all of the time. Especially on wide angle lenses.
Me? I don’t mind some image degradation as you move to the edge of an image. In photography, in many instances I actually prefer it as the sharper center draws the eye in. I believe it’s called “field curvature” in photography, at least. Not sure what the terminology is for riflescopes.
Imagine the focused image as a dome vs a flat field. That’s what I’m talking about.
Swaro (who owns Kahles) is known for their flat-field approach in binos. I don’t like the effect, although it is stunning. I prefer the typical Zeiss or Leica bino effect, which is more fuzzy towards the edges. In tree cover, for example, the Swaros can confuse the eye as too much is in focus. You can lose where you are, depth perception-wise.
It boils down to taste and expectations.
Anyway, I think March also has this effect with their wide angle eyepieces. It would seem to be a natural optical byproduct of wider and wider angle eyepieces, unless it works quite differently here than in photography (I know lots of opto-mechanical phenomena behave differently in riflescopes and cannot be directly compared to photo lenses).
Some are very picky about this issue. Some are not. Some think it’s a flaw, some think it is not. I know in photography it requires rather exceedingly expensive solutions to get that flat focus effect (edit: in wide angle lenses).
You see this debated on camera forums all of the time. Especially on wide angle lenses.
Me? I don’t mind some image degradation as you move to the edge of an image. In photography, in many instances I actually prefer it as the sharper center draws the eye in. I believe it’s called “field curvature” in photography, at least. Not sure what the terminology is for riflescopes.
Imagine the focused image as a dome vs a flat field. That’s what I’m talking about.
Swaro (who owns Kahles) is known for their flat-field approach in binos. I don’t like the effect, although it is stunning. I prefer the typical Zeiss or Leica bino effect, which is more fuzzy towards the edges. In tree cover, for example, the Swaros can confuse the eye as too much is in focus. You can lose where you are, depth perception-wise.
It boils down to taste and expectations.
Anyway, I think March also has this effect with their wide angle eyepieces. It would seem to be a natural optical byproduct of wider and wider angle eyepieces, unless it works quite differently here than in photography (I know lots of opto-mechanical phenomena behave differently in riflescopes and cannot be directly compared to photo lenses).
Some are very picky about this issue. Some are not. Some think it’s a flaw, some think it is not. I know in photography it requires rather exceedingly expensive solutions to get that flat focus effect (edit: in wide angle lenses).
Last edited:
I could care less about that last 5% of the image edge. I've used most of the top scopes, spotters, and binos and if I look hard enough I will perceive some image degradation on the edge of pretty much all of them. Unless that distortion is excessive, its simply not a quality I care about in optics. The only time my eyes are that close to the edge is if I'm looking for this very thing.
Additionally, anytime I read someones review claiming "perfect edge-to-edge clarity" or something like that, I basically discount their opinion of that optic.
Additionally, anytime I read someones review claiming "perfect edge-to-edge clarity" or something like that, I basically discount their opinion of that optic.
Last edited:
P.S. I hate Swaro due to #FOVgate, but I still sorta stick up for them here.
Even though I shouldn't (fuckers).
Even though I shouldn't (fuckers).
Spoiler alert
They really liked the Kahles in blind testing of glass quality, and field of view was a big part of that. They show the view through the scope and have circles for where Leupold and Vortex stop.
There is a complete discussion on this test here for more context. https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...025-big-boy-precision-optic-shootout.7250212/
For the 525 scopes the DLR had a better FOV and 10 Mil rev turret.
Nowadays on the 328 and 540, the DLR is just the 10 Mil rev turret. The FOV with these is the same between DLR and non-DLR.
Last edited:
Thanks, guys. I was looking and looking and could not figure out the difference. So the non-DLR is 15 mil per revolution turrets?
And the 10mil is considered better because it is easier to keep track of?
For PRS, wouldn't pretty much everything fit within 15 mils (say with a 6mm GT) so that one would not even go beyond one revolution with the 15 mils turret?
Please help me understand the pros and cons, here.
I do not have the same level of experience with different scopes and distances that some of you have. I have only been out to 1200 yards once, and my local match never goes beyond 600 (although I am going to be doing more PRS one day matches soon, which will probably be out to 1200).
I shoot with a Steiner T6Xi scope right now, which, if memory serves as I am sitting here, is 12 mils (not sure), but once you go 120 clicks on the turret, the numbers are in windows and automatically change so you never get lost when dialing. That is, at the second revolution, the numbers in the windows are different. 26 mils of total travel.
Here, if this does not come up at the right time, start around 5:20
So could somebody tell me the pros and cons of DLR v. non-DLR turret, now that I know what this means on the Kahles? Thank you in advance for taking the time.
And the 10mil is considered better because it is easier to keep track of?
For PRS, wouldn't pretty much everything fit within 15 mils (say with a 6mm GT) so that one would not even go beyond one revolution with the 15 mils turret?
Please help me understand the pros and cons, here.
I do not have the same level of experience with different scopes and distances that some of you have. I have only been out to 1200 yards once, and my local match never goes beyond 600 (although I am going to be doing more PRS one day matches soon, which will probably be out to 1200).
I shoot with a Steiner T6Xi scope right now, which, if memory serves as I am sitting here, is 12 mils (not sure), but once you go 120 clicks on the turret, the numbers are in windows and automatically change so you never get lost when dialing. That is, at the second revolution, the numbers in the windows are different. 26 mils of total travel.
Here, if this does not come up at the right time, start around 5:20
So could somebody tell me the pros and cons of DLR v. non-DLR turret, now that I know what this means on the Kahles? Thank you in advance for taking the time.
10 mil per rev gives more spacing between each .1 mil mark on the turret. More space to write once you put a speed turret sticker on the elevation turret and easier to read/easier on the eyes.
Are you talking about this? Speed turret sticker?
backfireshop.com
Turret Tags
Turret Tags by Backfire are quick-adjust yardage stickers for any scope. Simply apply the stickers to your scope to mark the correct yardage for any shot, then use the clear strip to lock the tags onto your scope so they don’t get bumped off during a hunt. The stickers are waterproof and...
backfireshop.com
You should go with the 10MIL DLR and turret tape as suggested. - Richard
Definitely some personal preference, but I have 20/15 vision, and I would go 10/mil DLR. The 15 mil turrets on my k525i were second only to my 6 mil tangent in terms of "clickiness", but spacing was pretty tight on the 15 mil version. 10 mil would be much preferable, especially since it sounds like you will only go into the second rev occasionally.
As said above, turret tape could also increase visibility. I have the IDTS tape on 15 mil ZCOs, and prefer that to the factory turret markings.
More like thisAre you talking about this? Speed turret sticker?
Turret Tags
Turret Tags by Backfire are quick-adjust yardage stickers for any scope. Simply apply the stickers to your scope to mark the correct yardage for any shot, then use the clear strip to lock the tags onto your scope so they don’t get bumped off during a hunt. The stickers are waterproof and...
https://idts-dryfire.com/product/ballistic-tape/
Similar threads
