Rifle Scopes New for 2025, the Kahles K540i

[CK1.0]

IDK, sounds like their support is somewhere between Vortex (awesome) and Leupold (trash) which on a delicate high ticket item doesn’t exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

The huge FOV on the K328i is cool and all, but when I went back to looking through my neutered-for-North America-FOV ZCO I wasn’t like “oh no, I’ve been looking through a straw” lol.

I won’t be an early adopter but I’ll definitely check one out if I get a chance to.

 

[Islas82]

IDK, sounds like their support is somewhere between Vortex (awesome) and Leupold (trash) which on a delicate high ticket item doesn’t exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

The huge FOV on the K328i is cool and all, but when I went back to looking through my neutered-for-North America-FOV ZCO I wasn’t like “oh no, I’ve been looking through a straw” lol.

I won’t be an early adopter but I’ll definitely check one out if I get a chance to.

This FOV shit is so overplayed.

 

[stanley_white]

This FOV shit is so overplayed.

“I would be a world champion if I had a greater FOV.”

-Nobody Ever

 

[B y r o n]

I had to send my k525i in for service. I had to pay shipping to the east coast. Then Swaro shipped across the pond to get fixed. I forget how long, but I think it was a month or 2 door-to-door.

Kahles service is definitely in the con column for me.

I don't see what you concern is with their service. You only had to pay for shipping to the East coast, you didn't have to deal with shipping out of the country. You didn't mention that the repair was not properly addressed so I assume it was to your liking. Time wise it didn't seem extreme so don't see any problem there. What exactly is your problem with their service?

 

[Islas82]

I don't see what you concern is with their service. You only had to pay for shipping to the East coast, you didn't have to deal with shipping out of the country. You didn't mention that the repair was not properly addressed so I assume it was to your liking. Time wise it didn't seem extreme so don't see any problem there. What exactly is your problem with their service?

The thing is that Vortex has set such a high standard regarding service and warranty that people will not accept anything less anymore. Even when it’s reasonable.

 

[kthomas]

I had to send my k525i in for service. I had to pay shipping to the east coast. Then Swaro shipped across the pond to get fixed. I forget how long, but I think it was a month or 2 door-to-door.

Kahles service is definitely in the con column for me.

Similar experience.

Recently had an issue with a K624 with the windage turret.

I paid to ship my scope off to Swarovskis service center, who then shipped the scope to Khales in Austria to be fixed.

Took about 2-3 months before I got the scope back again.

I would call the customer service neutral. Certainly not exceptional or timely, but they did resolve the issue with minimal hassle.

 

[kthomas]

IDK, sounds like their support is somewhere between Vortex (awesome) and Leupold (trash) which on a delicate high ticket item doesn’t exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

The huge FOV on the K328i is cool and all, but when I went back to looking through my neutered-for-North America-FOV ZCO I wasn’t like “oh no, I’ve been looking through a straw” lol.

I won’t be an early adopter but I’ll definitely check one out if I get a chance to.

They will take care of you if you encounter an issue. It will just likely take some time to resolve.

They won't leave you stranded, if that's what you are worried about.

 

[stanley_white]

If I must have something from a company with shoddy customer service or is physically located across an ocean, I'll wait until I can afford two of the thing.

-Stan

 

[TheOE800]

Took about 2-3 months before I got the scope back again.

Ouch. I had a Tangent back same within a week. There wasn’t anything “wrong” with it either, I just thought it didn’t meet expectations and Armament fixed it right up.

 

[kthomas]

Ouch. I had a Tangent back same within a week. There wasn’t anything “wrong” with it either, I just thought it didn’t meet expectations and Armament fixed it right up.

Yeah. I think it's reasonable to expect North American based manufacturers to have much quicker turnaround times on repairs than those based in Europe.

If you want expedient service, don't go with a company that's based thousands of miles away across an ocean...

 

[Nik H]

Ouch. I had a Tangent back same within a week. There wasn’t anything “wrong” with it either, I just thought it didn’t meet expectations and Armament fixed it right up.

I would expect no less if there were nothing wrong with it.

Got the same level of service from NF when one of my scopes had an issue. Mine was repaired and back to me in 9 days

 

[TheOE800]

I would expect no less if there were nothing wrong with it.

Got the same level of service from NF when one of my scopes had an issue. Mine was repaired and back to me in 9 days

It wasn’t broken I should have said. They examined the turrets and changed some o-rings. They performed service and had the scope back within a week, that better?

You got service from NF without suing them? Fake news.

 

[Nik H]

It wasn’t broken I should have said. They examined the turrets and changed some o-rings. They performed service and had the scope back within a week, that better?

You got service from NF without suing them? Fake news.

That's right. Maybe my positive attitude helps. Give it a try.

 

[CK1.0]

I just was wondering what a potential buyer would be signing up for, as, while I'm not poor, I don't exactly have piles of loot kicking around and would rather not have to buy a $4K+ backup scope... so, potentially having to face a 3-month wait to get something fixed, isn't ideal.

I guess I am one of those guys who's been spoiled by the Vortex warranty (I actually have never had a problem that required warranty, but I have managed to F'up a couple of Razors while crashing into things while being an idiot), and after getting burned by Leupold, I feel like I'm already out on a bit of a limb with my ZCO (even though their reputation is good for issues/fixes taking weeks not months).

When I buy fancy toys, I want to play with them when I have the time to play with them (free time can be hard to come by), so I'm weary of buying stuff that might end up being MIA for too long if/when I ever run into an issue or have a problem.

JMHO, but if Kahles wants to charge the same as TT and ZCO, they might want to make sure there's support in place so these things don't have to go all the way back to Austria to be fixed and can be returned back to owners/action in a shorter frame of time.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

Not necessarily, there is a lot more to the scope than erector and FOV. As with all things optics, there are always compromises, sometimes we are willing to look past the compromise in order to gain convenience or some other attribute we feel we need or want. The March 5-42 G2 High Master is 2" shorter than the Kahles... shorter along with high erector ratio typically means more compromises, but I say "typically" because there are things (magic) that optics manufacturers can do to help correct. All that to say that I do not expect the Kahles and the March to perform at the same level, but until we get them side by side we will not know for sure.

From your experiences, does wide FOV equal increased "eye box" at max magnification ???

 

[3rdfocal]

This FOV shit is so overplayed.

That is one opinion.

 

[Secant]

I feel like I'm already out on a bit of a limb with my ZCO

I haven’t had an issue with my ZCOs, but I did send one in for NLE conversion, and it was something like 1.5weeks door-to-door. I’ve called a couple times with questions before purchasing, and Jeff picked up each time.

 

[Secant]

I don't see what you concern is with their service. You only had to pay for shipping to the East coast, you didn't have to deal with shipping out of the country. You didn't mention that the repair was not properly addressed so I assume it was to your liking. Time wise it didn't seem extreme so don't see any problem there. What exactly is your problem with their service?

I don't see what you concern is with their service. You only had to pay for shipping to the East coast, you didn't have to deal with shipping out of the country. You didn't mention that the repair was not properly addressed so I assume it was to your liking. Time wise it didn't seem extreme so don't see any problem there. What exactly is your problem with their service?

This is all comparative. I’ve had better experiences with other companies. Shorter turnaround. Less cost.

Kinda like how my Kahles’ turrets were better than my ZCOs, and my Tangent is better than my Kahles. Doesn’t mean any of them are shit, but I definitely prefer tangent over the other 2.

I’d still buy another Kahles, and I might grab one of these 540 depending on how they shake out.

 

[Covertnoob5]

I think Kahles would do well taking a page out of the ZCO playbook. ZCO is based in Austria as well but they have a full service center in Idaho. I sent one of my 840’s for the NLE conversion and had it there and back in about 5 days. When i sent a TT back to armament for service it I shipped it to CO if I remember right and they took care of the shipping to CA then i had it back on my doorstep 7 days later. Very quick and efficient. I have a k624i that i do not want to be without for 2-3 months. So definitely something to consider. Even if the optic is great and reliable it doesn’t mean you wont drop it or some other human error to cause it to need service.

 

[Glassaholic]

I just was wondering what a potential buyer would be signing up for, as, while I'm not poor, I don't exactly have piles of loot kicking around and would rather not have to buy a $4K+ backup scope... so, potentially having to face a 3-month wait to get something fixed, isn't ideal.

I guess I am one of those guys who's been spoiled by the Vortex warranty (I actually have never had a problem that required warranty, but I have managed to F'up a couple of Razors while crashing into things while being an idiot), and after getting burned by Leupold, I feel like I'm already out on a bit of a limb with my ZCO (even though their reputation is good for issues/fixes taking weeks not months).

When I buy fancy toys, I want to play with them when I have the time to play with them (free time can be hard to come by), so I'm weary of buying stuff that might end up being MIA for too long if/when I ever run into an issue or have a problem.

JMHO, but if Kahles wants to charge the same as TT and ZCO, they might want to make sure there's support in place so these things don't have to go all the way back to Austria to be fixed and can be returned back to owners/action in a shorter frame of time.

If you want the best service in the USA for an alpha scope then ZCO is your game. Close but over the northern border is TT. Schmidt has also had phenomenal service in the USA thanks to Jerry R, but what happened with the rumors Schmidt was shutting down shop in USA? I understand the PITA that shipping overseas can be and that definitely can weigh into decisions especially with the QC or seemingly lack thereof that happens with even the alpha scopes these days, but sometimes it is worth the risk if the benefits outweigh the risk, but that's a decision for each shooter to make.

 

[Glassaholic]

From your experiences, does wide FOV equal increased "eye box" at max magnification ???

Good question and @koshkin likely has more to say about this. In my experience larger objectives along with larger eyepieces (and by larger I mean bigger in diameter) seem to hold the most promise for a forgiving eyebox, but also the focal length plays a part as well, shorter focal lengths have generally caused more finicky eyebox, the one scope that stands out is the ZCO 4-20, very good eyebox even with a fairly short focal length. One final factor is erector ratio, high erector scopes like the 8x scopes have had pretty finicky eyeboxes but scopes like the NX8 and March have had shorter focal lengths whereas scopes like the Schmidt 5-45 and now this Kahles 5-40 have longer focal lengths. I remember being somewhat surprised that the Schmidt 5-45 was more forgiving than I thought it would be with a 9x erector, but it too has a longer focal length.

 

[jthor]

Honest question, for those saying "FOV is overrated", have y'all used a 328 or 540? Shooting out west I think its a very nice feature. Is it a make or break feature? That's possible, but the whole "FOV is overrated" tune gives the similar vibes to "my Arken/Low end Vortex/other brand is just as good as your TT/ZCO/Razor/Kahles".

 

[Glassaholic]

I think there are a couple arguments with regard to FOV

• Can you be successful with a specific style of shooting with a scope that has limited FOV? Absolutely, we've lived with that for years, most FFP rifle scopes have hovered around the 20° - 22° AFOV (apparent field of view) range.
• Can you be successful with a specific style of shooting in competition sports today with a limited FOV scope? Absolutely, people are winning with Schmidt's, ZCO's, Leupold's, etc. For years, the TT 5-25 has had one of the highest AFOV of 22.92° of FFP scopes and we see those a lot more on the competition scene now oddly enough. Nightforce has an interesting design where their AFOV at the bottom magnification is pretty low, but quickly rises as you move up in mag to one of the highest in the industry and we see the ATACR 7-35 a lot on the competition scene.
• For the longest time, if you wanted greater FOV you would simply drop the magnification, but lower the magnification and you lower the ability for PID (positive identification for newbie's)... is that a steel plate or a rock out there... is that a branch or a trophy rack on a large buck or bull elk, etc. so while dropping magnification may give you that greater FOV needed to quickly scan the area, you are bumping the magnification back up to confirm and then take the shot and if you're shooting where time make a difference now you've lost some time while doing the magnification tango.
• What wider FOV designs like the Vortex RG3 6-36, March 5-42 and now Kahles K540i provide is the ability to maintain a higher magnification when scanning thus limiting the need to move back and forth in the mag range as much. From a dynamic shooting (transitioning between multiple targets over varying distances) perspective I can see an advantage here. If you can see the same amount of territory at 16x as you can with another scope at 12x, I see a benefit here with either staying at the same mag throughout a course for example, or when you do drop the mag you see much more than those around you, again benefiting your chances more.

 

[koshkin]

Good question and @koshkin likely has more to say about this. In my experience larger objectives along with larger eyepieces (and by larger I mean bigger in diameter) seem to hold the most promise for a forgiving eyebox, but also the focal length plays a part as well, shorter focal lengths have generally caused more finicky eyebox, the one scope that stands out is the ZCO 4-20, very good eyebox even with a fairly short focal length. One final factor is erector ratio, high erector scopes like the 8x scopes have had pretty finicky eyeboxes but scopes like the NX8 and March have had shorter focal lengths whereas scopes like the Schmidt 5-45 and now this Kahles 5-40 have longer focal lengths. I remember being somewhat surprised that the Schmidt 5-45 was more forgiving than I thought it would be with a 9x erector, but it too has a longer focal length.

Generally, wider AFOV eyepieces are a little bit harder to make with good eyebox. Narrower FOV makes it easier to achieve a good eyebox.
Some of that can be mitigated by clever design (RG3 is a good example of that). Kahles’ wide angle eyepiece seems to have decent eyebox. Not exceptional, but good. Definitely better than I expected from a design with such wide FOV.

ILya

 

[Secant]

I don't think FoV is necessarily overrated, but I do think it is often overstated (myself included). Running through the rough numbers, often times when scopes are compared, the HUGE FoV from Scope A is equal to the TINY FoV of Scope B when Scope B is on a magnification +/-0.5x-1x less than Scope A. When this is the case, for me, pragmatically the differences are non-existent.

For example, look at the rough chart below with some of the more popular scopes (feel free to check me on that). The Mk4 obviously has comparatively tiny FoV, and the March & new Kahles have large FoV. However, we're kinda sorta splitting hairs between k525i, G2R, 7-35 ATACR, ZCO527, and even TT525P. Of that group, you can say that Kahles & G2R have the smallest FoV and Tangent has the largest. But the FoV of k525i on 15x is approximately equal to the TT525P on about 16x. Personally, I don't really notice a difference if 1x while shooting.

However, the FoV of the k525i on 15x is about equal to the TT525P on about 16x which is about equal to the k540i on about 21x. To me, that's a meaningful difference that I'd notice while shooting, and it's worth talking about. That said, if the compromise is shitty depth of field, fisheye effect, poor resolution, etc. (I'm just making these up), greater FoV may not be worth the compromise.

 

[918v]

Generally, wider AFOV eyepieces are a little bit harder to make with good eyebox. Narrower FOV makes it easier to achieve a good eyebox.

Could you expand on that a little more?

 

[jthor]

I don't think FoV is necessarily overrated, but I do think it is often overstated (myself included). Running through the rough numbers, often times when scopes are compared, the HUGE FoV from Scope A is equal to the TINY FoV of Scope B when Scope B is on a magnification +/-0.5x-1x less than Scope A. When this is the case, for me, pragmatically the differences are non-existent.

For example, look at the rough chart below with some of the more popular scopes (feel free to check me on that). The Mk4 obviously has comparatively tiny FoV, and the March & new Kahles have large FoV. However, we're kinda sorta splitting hairs between k525i, G2R, 7-35 ATACR, ZCO527, and even TT525P. Of that group, you can say that Kahles & G2R have the smallest FoV and Tangent has the largest. But the FoV of k525i on 15x is approximately equal to the TT525P on about 16x. Personally, I don't really notice a difference if 1x while shooting.

However, the FoV of the k525i on 15x is about equal to the TT525P on about 16x which is about equal to the k540i on about 21x. To me, that's a meaningful difference that I'd notice while shooting, and it's worth talking about. That said, if the compromise is shitty depth of field, fisheye effect, poor resolution, etc. (I'm just making these up), greater FoV may not be worth the compromise.

View attachment 8590930

I posed the question just cause some replies lacked any sort of depth on the topic. FOV certainly isn't the end all be all, but it is an important consideration; as well as other features/topics. I appreciate your take on this and your last part is the biggest advantage I've seen running the 328 over the past year, from the 525 DLR. "However, the FoV of the k525i on 15x is about equal to the TT525P on about 16x which is about equal to the k540i on about 21x." With the 525DLR i typically ran my scope at 15x, but now with the 328 DLR I run my scope at 20x. I get more detail/clarity on where Impacts occurred without sacrificing my FOV.

 

[Glassaholic]

We have a handful of Kahles K540i DLR CCW 5-40x56 SKMR4+ LSW KLS-10721 ($3,499.00) shipping in! They are not on our site so PM, call us at 916-628-3490 or email [email protected] to grab one

-Richard

Is that a typo? I thought MAP was well above that. If that's actual MAP then that's not as bad as I thought and makes it much more competitive vs. ZCO, TT and Schmidt.

 

[CSTactical]

Is that a typo? I thought MAP was well above that. If that's actual MAP then that's not as bad as I thought and makes it much more competitive vs. ZCO, TT and Schmidt.

Yes it was a typo, sorry I was multitasking

 

[Glassaholic]

Generally, wider AFOV eyepieces are a little bit harder to make with good eyebox. Narrower FOV makes it easier to achieve a good eyebox.
Some of that can be mitigated by clever design (RG3 is a good example of that). Kahles’ wide angle eyepiece seems to have decent eyebox. Not exceptional, but good. Definitely better than I expected from a design with such wide FOV.

ILya

See, I would have thought the opposite based on my experience with scopes with forgiving eyebox. Have you done a video yet specific to eyebox and what design attributes contribute to a more forgiving eyebox?

 

[CSTactical]

*Edit, They are shipping in February - Richard

We have a handful of Kahles K540i DLR CCW 5-40x56 SKMR4+ LSW KLS-10721 ($4,599.00) shipping in! They are not on our site so PM, call us at 916-628-3490 or email [email protected] to grab one

-Richard

 

[Glassaholic]

Yes it was a typo, sorry

Now who's bursting balloons, if I call up right away can I get the typo price

 

[koshkin]

See, I would have thought the opposite based on my experience with scopes with forgiving eyebox. Have you done a video yet specific to eyebox and what design attributes contribute to a more forgiving eyebox?

I am sure I mentioned it some point during one of the "explanations" videos, but I do not think I have ever done anything dedicated to that.

I probably should, but the basic problem is that the whole eyebox business is kinda "non-linear". There are general guidelines/considerations, but they can be overcome, to some degree, by clever design. The basic problem with eyebox is that you kinda have to see the scope. There is nothing you can see in the specs that provides exact information on what the eyebox will be like.

The eyepiece is functionally a sophisticated target projector that beams an image out to your eye. All else being equal (and it is never all equal), you have more latitude in eye position if you are trying to see a smaller image than if you are trying to see a larger image.

It is a very weird thing where, again all else being equal, a larger eyepiece usually helps with eyebox, while the larger AFOV usually detracts from the eyebox and those two parameters are in a tug of war with each other (and with eyerelief).

I can probably give it a shot during a livestream with a whiteboard, so that I can get real time feedback. It is a tricky subject because there are no real concrete recommendations that I can make other than providing some background to how it works.

ILya

 

[stanley_white]

I think there are a couple arguments with regard to FOV

• Can you be successful with a specific style of shooting with a scope that has limited FOV? Absolutely, we've lived with that for years, most FFP rifle scopes have hovered around the 20° - 22° AFOV (apparent field of view) range.
• Can you be successful with a specific style of shooting in competition sports today with a limited FOV scope? Absolutely, people are winning with Schmidt's, ZCO's, Leupold's, etc. For years, the TT 5-25 has had one of the highest AFOV of 22.92° of FFP scopes and we see those a lot more on the competition scene now oddly enough. Nightforce has an interesting design where their AFOV at the bottom magnification is pretty low, but quickly rises as you move up in mag to one of the highest in the industry and we see the ATACR 7-35 a lot on the competition scene.
• For the longest time, if you wanted greater FOV you would simply drop the magnification, but lower the magnification and you lower the ability for PID (positive identification for newbie's)... is that a steel plate or a rock out there... is that a branch or a trophy rack on a large buck or bull elk, etc. so while dropping magnification may give you that greater FOV needed to quickly scan the area, you are bumping the magnification back up to confirm and then take the shot and if you're shooting where time make a difference now you've lost some time while doing the magnification tango.
• What wider FOV designs like the Vortex RG3 6-36, March 5-42 and now Kahles K540i provide is the ability to maintain a higher magnification when scanning thus limiting the need to move back and forth in the mag range as much. From a dynamic shooting (transitioning between multiple targets over varying distances) perspective I can see an advantage here. If you can see the same amount of territory at 16x as you can with another scope at 12x, I see a benefit here with either staying at the same mag throughout a course for example, or when you do drop the mag you see much more than those around you, again benefiting your chances more.

Great post!

-Stan

 

[Glassaholic]

I am sure I mentioned it some point during one of the "explanations" videos, but I do not think I have ever done anything dedicated to that.

I probably should, but the basic problem is that the whole eyebox business is kinda "non-linear". There are general guidelines/considerations, but they can be overcome, to some degree, by clever design. The basic problem with eyebox is that you kinda have to see the scope. There is nothing you can see in the specs that provides exact information on what the eyebox will be like.

The eyepiece is functionally a sophisticated target projector that beams an image out to your eye. All else being equal (and it is never all equal), you have more latitude in eye position if you are trying to see a smaller image than if you are trying to see a larger image.

It is a very weird thing where, again all else being equal, a larger eyepiece usually helps with eyebox, while the larger AFOV usually detracts from the eyebox and those two parameters are in a tug of war with each other (and with eyerelief).

I can probably give it a shot during a livestream with a whiteboard, so that I can get real time feedback. It is a tricky subject because there are no real concrete recommendations that I can make other than providing some background to how it works.

ILya

A dedicated livestream would be great, in fact, I might try to move heaven and earth to make that one as long as it's not on a Thursday night.

Thank you for the more detailed description, that definitely helps because I mistakenly thought you meant larger eyepiece in the first response but now I see I read that wrong, you wrote "wider AFOV eyepiece" so my experience with the larger eyepieces (not necessarily wider AFOV) having been more forgiving. Like you mentioned, there is nothing in the typical specs that are key indicators for what makes for a more forgiving eyebox experience, you just have to "see it" to know.

 

[Night Vision Viking]

“I would be a world champion if I had a greater FOV.”

-Nobody Ever

I had the ZCO840 and the Kahles 540i side-by-side and I don't agree.

A lot in the image was very similar, hard to choose a favorite. But the FOV in the 540i was about 34% bigger, and it makes a huge difference in most, but not all, target transitions. Just to name an example.

 

[stanley_white]

I had the ZCO840 and the Kahles 540i side-by-side and I don't agree.

A lot in the image was very similar, hard to choose a favorite. But the FOV in the 540i was about 34% bigger, and it makes a huge difference in most, but not all, target transitions. Just to name an example.

Were you able to determine how much faster can you shoot with the extra FOV?

And if yes, cool, but I wonder how many shooters are good enough at their core skills to be able to take advantage of the extra FOV.

-Stan

 

[Covertnoob5]

For those wondering if it makes a difference in competition I’ll give you a measurable example I ran into. When I was testing and shooting the k328i I loved the extra FOV and ran that scope usually around 20-22x. It gave me 10+ mils of FOV. Closer to 12mils of FOV (per side of the stadia). The next match after I was done with the K328i I shot my MK5 5-25.
At 20x the MK5 has about 8.75 mils per side for reference.

There was a stage where you had to transition between 2 targets next to each other and you had to shoot them in different engagement patterns and positions. When getting down on the target it was hard to tell if you were aiming at the right or left. They were both the same target shape. Both same color no placard or anything to identify. Lots of guys panning side to side to confirm which one they were aiming at. First position I realized at 20x I could not see both targets. I had to drop down in mag. But then you lose some ability to see where you hit or miss on plate. There was thick brush behind the target that just ate up a lot of bullet splash.
After the stages was over I went back to try to measure how far apart the targets were and realized if I had the 328i I could’ve found a better mag range that would show me both targets. They were about 13-14 mils apart. So with the 328i I still could’ve shot that stage at probably 18x ish power and seen both targets. 12 rounds 4 positions 2 targets 90 seconds for those wondering. I’m sure some guys I watched would not have timed out. I’m not saying FOV is nothing but there’s definitely times it makes a difference that you may not think about until later.

 

[stanley_white]

For those wondering if it makes a difference in competition I’ll give you a measurable example I ran into. When I was testing and shooting the k328i I loved the extra FOV and ran that scope usually around 20-22x. It gave me 10+ mils of FOV. Closer to 12mils of FOV (per side of the stadia). The next match after I was done with the K328i I shot my MK5 5-25.
At 20x the MK5 has about 8.75 mils per side for reference.

There was a stage where you had to transition between 2 targets next to each other and you had to shoot them in different engagement patterns and positions. When getting down on the target it was hard to tell if you were aiming at the right or left. They were both the same target shape. Both same color no placard or anything to identify. Lots of guys panning side to side to confirm which one they were aiming at. First position I realized at 20x I could not see both targets. I had to drop down in mag. But then you lose some ability to see where you hit or miss on plate. There was thick brush behind the target that just ate up a lot of bullet splash.
After the stages was over I went back to try to measure how far apart the targets were and realized if I had the 328i I could’ve found a better mag range that would show me both targets. They were about 13-14 mils apart. So with the 328i I still could’ve shot that stage at probably 18x ish power and seen both targets. 12 rounds 4 positions 2 targets 90 seconds for those wondering. I’m sure some guys I watched would not have timed out. I’m not saying FOV is nothing but there’s definitely times it makes a difference that you may not think about until later.

Thank you!

Which reticle did your MK5 have?

What power did you have to power down to on the MK5?

-Stan

 

[Hennig]

If we can all agree FOV = good, it seems retarded to try and argue that more FOV != better. Whether it’s worth the cost to you personally is another matter entirely.

 

[3rdfocal]

How much faster can you shoot with the extra FOV?

-Stan

Loaded question. In a competition setting where all of your targets are down the same general bearing, within 10-15 degrees of each other, it may not matter too much but more FOV certainly isn't slowing anyone down.

I can share an experience from hunting this past year. STUD black bear bedded down in a pretty shadowy canyon @ 700 yards. 9 am but very challenging lighting conditions being so dark in the canyon that it took a long time for us to confirm it was even a bear with a 4-32 nx8, 12x and 16x binos, like 30 mins of watching this thing to finally catch movement and make out ears. Didn't like the shot so we wait. Hours later this bear gets up and starts moving out into the sun across a hill, excellent shot opportunity. Capable shooter, buddy gets on the gun and is searching searching searching but can't find the bear. I'm on binos and coaching him to it as much as possible using landmarks and such. We're definitely on the clock so to speak as this bear is only going to give us short window, but we're talking about a relatively tiny target that blends in well in very complex terrain, and lots of terrain to cover, chaotic 30 seconds. He was around 15x magnification and probably needed at least that much to be able to pick apart the terrain enough once he got the bear in view to actually notice the animal. More FOV would have absolutely helped him find landmarks (and the bear) quicker (while taking advantage of the magnification) as we were talking, and maybe had him ready for a shot. Ultimately he got on the bear but late and decided not to shoot, things weren't right. There was a perfect opportunity early on where this bear stood up on a rock outcropping looking straight up at us, bruiser, but the shooter couldn't find him, just scanning around frantically looking. There's something else to FOV that is hard to describe but seeing a bigger picture helps the brain determine depth of field and other aspects of the image much better, I think it helps with mirage too, watching mirage over a longer area seems to give a better idea of what's happening, zoom out and your mirage goes away, but zoom in too much and you can't really see it either, there's a happy medium. More FOV, more mag, still good mirage. He smoked a good bear a few hours later so it wasn't all bad!

 

[stanley_white]

Loaded question. In a competition setting where all of your targets are down the same general bearing, within 10-15 degrees of each other, it may not matter too much but more FOV certainly isn't slowing anyone down.

I can share an experience from hunting this past year. STUD black bear bedded down in a pretty shadowy canyon @ 700 yards. 9 am but very challenging lighting conditions being so dark in the canyon that it took a long time for us to confirm it was even a bear with a 4-32 nx8, 12x and 16x binos, like 30 mins of watching this thing to finally catch movement and make out ears. Didn't like the shot so we wait. Hours later this bear gets up and starts moving out into the sun across a hill, excellent shot opportunity. Capable shooter, buddy gets on the gun and is searching searching searching but can't find the bear. I'm on binos and coaching him to it as much as possible using landmarks and such. We're definitely on the clock so to speak as this bear is only going to give us short window, but we're talking about a relatively tiny target that blends in well in very complex terrain, and lots of terrain to cover, chaotic 30 seconds. He was around 15x magnification and probably needed at least that much to be able to pick apart the terrain enough once he got the bear in view to actually notice the animal. More FOV would have absolutely helped him find landmarks (and the bear) quicker (while taking advantage of the magnification) as we were talking, and maybe had him ready for a shot. Ultimately he got on the bear but late and decided not to shoot, things weren't right. There was a perfect opportunity early on where this bear stood up on a rock outcropping looking straight up at us, bruiser, but the shooter couldn't find him, just scanning around frantically looking. There's something else to FOV that is hard to describe but seeing a bigger picture helps the brain determine depth of field and other aspects of the image much better, I think it helps with mirage too, watching mirage over a longer area seems to give a better idea of what's happening, zoom out and your mirage goes away, but zoom in too much and you can't really see it either, there's a happy medium. More FOV, more mag, still good mirage. He smoked a good bear a few hours later so it wasn't all bad!

Great post.

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[clefairy]

Yea. Kinda retarded saying more fov doesn’t matter. Hey wait, you can see more down range at higher mag, nobody wants that….

 

[Covertnoob5]

Thank you!

Which reticle did your MK5 have?

What power did you have to power down to on the MK5?

-Stan

PR2. I don’t remember exactly but I went down pretty far. Probably 13-14x ish and that definitely compromises the ability to see thick brush eat a 6mm bullet when you miss.

 

[stanley_white]

PR2. I don’t remember exactly but I went down pretty far. Probably 13-14x ish and that definitely compromises the ability to see thick brush eat a 6mm bullet when you miss.

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[Night Vision Viking]

Were you able to determine how much faster can you shoot with the extra FOV?

And if yes, cool, but I wonder how many shooters are good enough at their core skills to be able to take advantage of the extra FOV.

-Stan

I see your point, but how fast I'm shooting is defined by other things (try the trigger ).

For target transitions a large FOV is a major contributor to potentially decreasing the overall time.

I do a lot of DMR shooting with semi-autos, and we have to put the rifle on safe in the transition, if we cannot see the next target group.
So I try to set the FOV so I can see at least two target groups. The larger the magnification when that happens, the better I shoot. Perhaps this example is very specific, but I'm sure PRS shooters can relate as well.

 

[stanley_white]

I see your point, but how fast I'm shooting is defined by other things (try the trigger ).

For target transitions a large FOV is a major contributor to potentially decreasing the overall time.

I do a lot of DMR shooting with semi-autos, and we have to put the rifle on safe in the transition, if we cannot see the next target group.
So I try to set the FOV so I can see at least two target groups. The larger the magnification when that happens, the better I shoot. Perhaps this example is very specific, but I'm sure PRS shooters can relate as well.

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[carbonbased]

how much faster can you shoot with the extra FOV?

In addition to the excellent answers above, if one is shooting small critters like prairie dogs, a wide FOV:

• Allows one to zoom in more (for the reasons someone mentioned above)
• Zooming in is really nice for shooting tiny targets, and afterwards, to see the next tiny nearby target
• Helps the spotter to more efficiently direct the shooter to the target, and vice versa.

In the moon-like featureless landscape of many pdog fields, spotter/shooter comms can be hilarious to listen back to later on video. Much exasperation and swearing typically occurs lol

 

[stanley_white]

In addition to the excellent answers above, if one is shooting small critters like prairie dogs, a wide FOV:

• Allows one to zoom in more (for the reasons someone mentioned above)
• Zooming in is really nice for shooting tiny targets, and afterwards, to see the next tiny nearby target
• Helps the spotter to more efficiently direct the shooter to the target, and vice versa.

In the moon-like featureless landscape of many pdog fields, spotter/shooter comms can be hilarious to listen back to later on video. Much exasperation and swearing typically occurs lol

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[918v]

Found another video.

If you FF to 5:30 he talks about having only 17 mils of elevation available after zeroing on a 20 moa base. You’d think there would be more.