That's okay, like my dad used to tell me "you're entitled to your own wrong opinion."
My Dad was a military officer, and growing up, he was less kind. He used to tell me: "If you need to have an opinion, I will issue you one."
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New kahles 525
- Thread starter Iggles2017
- Start date
My Dad was a military officer, and growing up, he was less kind. He used to tell me: "If you need to have an opinion, I will issue you one."
It would seem of late that the USA price ends up being the equivalent of the Euro, with the K318i coming in at € 3,200 the US price is listed at $3,199; therefore, I would assume the K525i will come in at $3,299. The current list for the K624i is $2,999 so the new K525i is $300 more. Kahles also lists flip caps, sunshade and killflash, it sure would be nice if they included these items for this price, at lest the flip caps as it was a pain to order the Tenebraex parts when I bought my K624i.
Doesn't the European price include VAT? US prices should always be lower than European prices for that fact alone and I notice which companies see it fit to ignore that.
A quick search of Euro resellers shows the K318i shipping for ~€2900.
Bill, one thing I can add to your excellent CA explanation is that while the color fringes are the manifestation that is immediately apparent, it has an overall effect on all aspects of the image and is generally related to how good of a color contrast you can achieve. It is not terribly critical for aiming, but it is important for observation and image fidelity during twilight before your eye transitions into scotopic vision.
ILya
ILya
I understand it may seem (to some) that I'm just here to complain, but because I'm so obsessed with high end optics I have certain expectations. When I had my own professional photography business I shot Canon for many years and took some amazing images with film and digital, but when Nikon came out with the D700 and Canon still had no digital EOS 3 equivalent, some of my friends in the trade convinced me to at least give Nikon a try, so I bought a D700 and AF-S 24-70 and 70-200 lenses and I was blown away at how responsive the AF was, how accurate in low light it was and how good the images looked right out of camera compared to the Canon gear, in fact, I had about 20% more keeper shots per wedding using Nikon vs. Canon. I ended up selling all my Canon gear and replacing with Nikon which was an expensive endeavor but was a wise move ultimately financially. For my style of photography the Nikon gear just suited me better, it didn't mean the Canon was incapable, it just meant "for my purposes" the Nikon meant more confidence, easier post processing and in many cases more sales. Every optical system exhibits some kind of chromatic aberration (CA), it is the nature of the beast because we are bending light through multiple glass elements; however, it is clear that some lens designs handle this better than others and typically it's the more expensive lenses that exhibit less CA and better resolution.
But here's the thing, Nikon stubbornly stuck to its laurels and would not budge from using 1.5x crop sensors while Canon was leading the way in full frame sensors for years before Nikon caved and finally dove into the full frame market with the D3/D700. Market competition caused Nikon to step up their game and many photographers are grateful as a result. Same thing goes for lenses, for years Zeiss and Leica were pretty much known to be the cream of the crop, but you'd be hard pressed today to not find a Nikon or Canon (and now Sony) equivalent and even the third party manufacturers like Sigma with its ART line and Tamron wtih their SP line are beginning to knock on the door of the OEM's and some would argue even exceed. All this competition is pushing the envelope for better and better designs, and with the third parties offering amazing glass at sometimes half the price of the OEM counterpart it may force the OEM's to be a bit more competitive in their pricing structure as well.
The same thing goes for rifle scopes, and maybe it's because I have a background in photography that causes my eye to be more critical when looking at the image I see through the scope. For many years the CA didn't "bother me" because I thought all riflescopes exhibited this trait and to this degree. But then I started buying higher end scopes (thank you Snipers Hide for ruining my life!) and soon realized this is not the case. The Premier LT 3-15x50 was the first that truly blew me away with that "WOW!" experience when you first look through it, with lesser scopes it's like looking through a screen and then someone removes the screen and you get to see what you've been missing. If Schmidt didn't have such amazing optics, if Premier/TT didn't push the limits of what is optically capable, the bar would be lower and there would be less pressure for other manufacturers to raise their bar. I like competition and I want more scope manufacturers to push the limits of what is capable because that means we (the consumers) get better products at better prices. But they aren't going to raise their bar unless the community speaks up and says something. I am but one small voice in an ocean of voices, my desire is to see manufacturers continue to improve their products even if they already make amazing products.
I griped when Vortex introduced the Gen II Razor because they were too heavy and now we have the AMG which is much lighter and arguably better optically, I griped when TT took over Premier and charged exorbitant prices and kept the same reticles and Minox delivered with their own Optronika version at $1500 less, I griped that more manufacturers should be making an "Ultra Short" design (18x or more and less than 14") and this year we have four new models to choose from, I griped because Leupold charged way too much for their top tier tactical scopes and now we have the Mark 5HD line, I've griped that more manufacturers need .2 mil hash reticles like the SKMR and now we have a plethora of reticles from multiple manufacturers following suite, I griped that Nightforce has poor FOV and needs better reticles and now we have the Mil-C which is a definite improvement over the Mil-R, I griped because Schmidt & Bender continues to use illumination tumors instead of inline with parallax like almost every else and... well okay, so Schmidt & Bender doesn't care about what I gripe about
. And finally, I've griped that Kahles needed to get past the 4x erector and has too much CA for a scope in its price class and now we have a new K525i design that hopefully will be the scope that I hoped the K624i would be optically (because they got almost everything else right). I've had many more gripes from various manufacturers and while my griping does not equate to all these new features, when the community begins to raise similar issues that is when the manufacturers begin to pay attention. Money talks, and when Brand X begins to cut into the market share of Brand Y, the Brand Y guys begin looking at why, and one of the best places for them to get good information as to why Brand X is doing so well, is right here on Snipers Hide.There was so much to love about the Kahles, I loved the reticle (they pretty much changed the industry with the SKMR), loved the top parallax, loved the forgiving eyebox and the resolution is out of this world, but the CA can be improved as well as low light contrast and clarity and the turret clicks could be improved because sometimes I would dial .1 - .2 mil over too easily. The new K525i looks to be an improvement in just about every area so the big question for me will be did they improve upon CA with the new optical formula, I am really hoping so. Regarding the Minox, the ZP5 (and only the ZP5 line) was designed by the same Optronika group that Chris Thomas put together for his Premier scopes, this is the same design that TT inherited and you can see the similarities when you compare the specs between all 3 scopes (Premier 525, TT 525 and Minox ZP5 525) and while each manufacturer adds their own nuances like turrets, reticles, multicoatings, etc. the same basic optical formula is used and therefore they all exhibit some of the best optical quality out there. So this year we have potentially two new scopes that might be added to this upper echelon of optical supremacy with the ZCO ZC527 and the Kahles K525i, ZCO seems to think they have made the best scope both optically and mechanically so I am very eager to see if their claims are true, and now Kahles has surprised us by finally getting past the 90's with a 5x erector and hopefully improving on their already amazing design.
Years ago I was able to hit what I was aiming at with a SFP duplex reticle, granted my range limit was 300, maybe 400 yards at most. With today's mil reticles and advanced turret designs we are capable of going far beyond that, combine that with new bullet designs and higher BC's than before, advanced powders that are more efficient and less temperature sensitive, more efficient cartridge designs , better barrels and twist rates, advanced carbon fiber stocks and chassis, ballistic calculators, hand held weather stations, laser rangfinders and more. Well it's a different game than it was even 10 years ago and now we're starting to see some amazing advancements in scopes, not just optically but electro optics like the new Revic with HUD or Sig's built in level (okay USO, you've had that, but stop making baseball bats and I might be more interested) or even Swarovski's ds, but we still need to look through the scope at objects far away and have a reticle and turrets that allow us to get hits on target, and for that we are still looking at similar optical principles that have been around for a long, long time.
Thank you for sharing that ILya, that might help to explain what I see in a lot of scopes (or what I don't see) going into the twilight/low light hours, this is where I've observed many scopes struggling. I never thought that it might be related to CA because I tend to think of CA as a "bright light" phenomenon; however, knowing that CA is an optical aberration it makes sense that the deficiency would play out in all light, not just day light and not just with high contrast changes (black on white). I even noticed this with the Kahles K624i, that during low light it struggled compared to the other scopes I was testing it against, was it coincidence that the other scopes controlled CA better? Again, so I do not offend the Kahles crowd, I'm not saying the Kahles was bad in low light, all I'm saying is that when compared to Premier, March and Schmidt, all these scopes exhibited better IQ in low light, at least to my eyes. I know many other forum members have raved about the Kahles in low light, but I think most of their rave comes from how bright the scope is, but I look for more than just brightness when I do my low light testing, I am looking for that contrast and image fidelity like you mention and when compared side by side, the differences begin to reveal themselves in sometimes subtle ways. Then we get into preference, not just personal preference, but brain preference - that which looks pleasing to our eye; when you look at two images, one with a warm cast and one with a cool cast, do you have a preference? My preference almost always leans toward the "warmer" image and so that is the kind of image that is more pleasing to my eye. One of the best examples of this was when I had my Bushnell ET 3.5-21x50 DMR, for almost a year I had used it and been pretty happy with it, then I got a Zeiss FL 4-16x50 and realized what I was "missing" as I suddenly saw how "blue" the Bushnell DMR was in low light, then I got the Premier LT soon after the Zeiss and saw even better color and fidelity than even the Zeiss, that was my aha moment, when I realized that not all scopes are created equal. The difference between the DMR and Zeiss FL was almost night and day, it was very obvious, but the differences between the Zeiss and Premier were more subtle, I had to look hard but I found them; however, if I did not have the scopes side by side I probably would not have noticed the difference.
I’ve converted to Kahles on my primary rifles over a year ago and shoot morning, evening, mid day, towards the sun, away from the sun, at night in rain in freezing in hot as fuck and I’ve never seen CA....... I’m definitely in for the 3-18 for sure
Thank you Bill and Ilya for taking the time to post long and detailed information sharing your knowledge. I always follow what you’ve got to say and learn from your sharing. On my own journey, I have 3 S&B scopes and a Vortex AMG on my main long range rifles. The Bushnell G2DMR and Bushnell ERS have been relegated to a .22 LR trainer and a 16” AR. The Schmidt’s image just seems to “pop” much more than the AMG but I’m torn between liking the EBR-7B reticle more than the H2CMR but liking the Schmidt’s image quality. I too am looking forward to seeing what the K525i will do when it gets to us.
Nice thread. I have deepened my knowledge of CA, gotten a number of first hand observations and testimonials, and learned a new term from Ilya: "scoptic vision." Is that an Ilyaism ?
As to the why 5-25x, it is a 5x, while the older design is a 4x. That is one reason. I also believe that Kahles is adopting a different design architecture in the 3-18x (6x for those in Rio Lindo), which is more along the lines of a S&B US, NF ATACR and Steiner Military (and , yes, Leupold Mk 5,6). To me, it is just about continuing to innovate and keep-up in the marketplace. You are also seeing Kahles offer a larger variety of reticles. In the past, the AMR had a cult following, but was not mainstream. Nor is the EBR that Vortex has.
As to the why 5-25x, it is a 5x, while the older design is a 4x. That is one reason. I also believe that Kahles is adopting a different design architecture in the 3-18x (6x for those in Rio Lindo), which is more along the lines of a S&B US, NF ATACR and Steiner Military (and , yes, Leupold Mk 5,6). To me, it is just about continuing to innovate and keep-up in the marketplace. You are also seeing Kahles offer a larger variety of reticles. In the past, the AMR had a cult following, but was not mainstream. Nor is the EBR that Vortex has.
I hear you m1, exactly my experience with Schmidt, amazing IQ that just pops when you look through it, I was not a huge fan of the H2CMR either and wish they had better reticles, even though they probably have the most reticles none of them really excite me; however, I see the new MSR2 and LRR-Mil as very workable so have been anxious for those to finally come to fruition.
Scotopic Vision is simply how your eyes work in low light and maybe the transition ILya mentions is when your eye begins to no longer use cone cells but rod cells and I wonder if that's what sometimes gives the fuzzy or cloudy appearance in low light with some scopes that have more CA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
I know it can be confusing because the model is K318i; however, the magnification range is actually 3.5-18 which is still a 5x erector. Many were hoping Kahles jumped right from 4x to 6x but that is not the case. I agree with others that going from 6-24 to 5-25 is nothing major especially since Kahles already has great FOV for a 6x bottom end (better than some 5x's in fact); my guess is they wanted to improve the overall optical formula in their scopes and provide shorter designs. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the IQ of the new K525i will be nothing short of amazing, for those who are happy with their K624i's they will most likely keep them, but to continue to be competitive in the marketplace a 5-25 is more in line with what everyone else is offering.
I would love to get a K525i and ZC527 to do a full review alongside my Vortex AMG and Minox ZP5 5-25, will try to see if I can make that happen.
I'm not a dealer, but I thought MSRP for the k624 was ~$3,300 with MAP around $2,999 and street price several hundred less.
I don't know if I've ever seen MSRP on the K624i, I'm pretty sure all the Hide dealers display MAP and you are correct that "Street" is less which is why it's good to call around and tell them you're a SH member and ask for their lowest price... it never hurts to ask
I don't know if I've ever seen MSRP on the K624i, I'm pretty sure all the Hide dealers display MAP and you are correct that "Street" is less which is why it's good to call around and tell them you're a SH member and ask for their lowest price... it never hurts to ask
We don't mind being asked
CS is a great one to ask as well. PS - your signature now has black text on black background now that the theme for the SH website has changed to black, it makes it hard to read your phone number.We don't mind being asked
EuroOptic are listing the 5-25 at $3299...Probably going to get shafted with a price north of 4 grand in Australia.
I presume they will be making the 6-24 gen3 for a couple of years and then will move on 5-25 completely.
My guess is we’re going to see some killer deals on the K624i as they push out the last of the stock once the K525i’s hit the market. If the 525 is what I hope it will be I think it’s going to be a huge hit, but we have to wait and see, especially with the ZCO hot on it’s tail. This, the ZCO and know Steiner with the M7Xi, it’s like the industry woke up this year, crazy stuff!
I sold my 624i for an AMG because all white targets were washed out and I couldn't even judge groups on paper at 100. I do not have this problem with the AMG. Hoping the Minox ZP5 MR4 or ZComp treats me better.
I did like some things about the Kahles such as the turrets (best imo), reticles and illumination (that I never used) but I hated where the parralax was (also hardly used which kind of made up for it) and the washed out image on white targets.
Maybe the 525i will fix the last bit..
I did like some things about the Kahles such as the turrets (best imo), reticles and illumination (that I never used) but I hated where the parralax was (also hardly used which kind of made up for it) and the washed out image on white targets.
Maybe the 525i will fix the last bit..
I have no issue seeing my impacts on white targets, I have been able to see 6.5 holes at 500yds on white/tan targets. The Kahles glass is very bright and works great in low light conditions. I'm really looking forward to trying out Kahles NEW 5-25x.
CST, Did you have chance to compare the K624i to the K525i at the Shot show? I have a K624i that I really like and will need another scope soon. I don't seem to have the issues with the K624i that I've read about here such as CA. Is it worth waiting for the K525i or just wait when the vendors will likely start discounting k624i before the release of the K525i?
So does anyone out there know if Kahles have addressed the CA issues that plague the K624? If they have, then I'm confident this new offering will sell well. If they haven't...well I suspect there will be a few unhappy campers out there.
Just read earlier in this thread, there is a lot of back and forth, but since the K525i is only a prototype at this point nobody knows what they've corrected with their new optical formula. There are plenty who've never noticed or are not bothered by the CA; however, I am one who was bothered by it even though I really liked the rest of the package. Two things I'm really hoping are addressed are the CA and the low light performance - I'm not talking about how bright it is in low light, there are other qualities in low light that I look for, like color and contrast. Many scopes perform well in good lighting conditions but not all of them perform at the same level when the light gets low, the Premier, Schmidt and March performed better in low light than the Kahles did in my testing. It would seem Kahles has been pretty responsive to the community so I have high hopes for the K318i and K525i in this regard and my gut tells me these are going to be phenomenal scopes optically and mechanically which may shake things up a bit (but my wife accuses me of having leaky gut so you can't always trust my gut
)Difficult to turn because it was too tight or because of the location? The unit I had was really good in the parallax resistance so I had no complaints there, and while the illumination control is via a rheostat (it still is in the K525i) and I prefer the clicks with off between settings, I did not have an issue with the illumination control as it was easy to adjust and spin for high or slight twist for low and everything in between. The K624i could only go down to 50m and the new K525i is advertised at being able to go down to 22y which is a significant improvement, my hope is that some of the forgiveness of the K624i hasn't been lost in favor of the shorter focus/parallax. Also hoping the amazing eye box of the K624i is at least the same and better yet improved upon with the K525i to make it even better in that regard.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see these scopes before the end of summer, but would love to be surprised.
Wow. I love my 624i, and I've never seen nor heard about (before this thread) CA. I love the parallax being on the turret, I love the turret, I love the right hand windage, the clarity, the FOV, and the SKMR3 is exactly what I need with nothing I don't.
I must be low brow and ignorant to like this scope so much, and not have a single knock on it.
Bought it from CS Tactical, referred there by a guy in my squad at a match, who answered all my questions, were hassle free to deal with, and gave me a better deal on it than anything anywhere that's in print. It was hard for me to believe I was buying something rifle related from occupied CA, but there you go. Sometimes you have to look behind enemy lines!
I must be low brow and ignorant to like this scope so much, and not have a single knock on it.
Bought it from CS Tactical, referred there by a guy in my squad at a match, who answered all my questions, were hassle free to deal with, and gave me a better deal on it than anything anywhere that's in print. It was hard for me to believe I was buying something rifle related from occupied CA, but there you go. Sometimes you have to look behind enemy lines!
Way too tight. Mine felt like the something was dragging inside, and no my rings were not too tight. It also had hysteresis. The illumination sucked, flickered on and off as the knob turned.
The scope is a great concept if properly executed. Maybe it’s a qc issue.
I have also Gen III 6-24 Kahles, and heard few guys talking about CA of Kahles, i just dont give a F of that.
I do not miss a target because the scope does not do all the color view like a S&B might do, but i still think it is a better scope for me than PM II 5-25.
Hey, but that´s just me.
Also thought that should i sell my 6-24, for getting more elevation and tiny bit of high end, i dont think so, well not if i have not looked thru one of the new models, but still dont think that there would be so much more in this new one, that i would buy one.
But will see, there is some great things on that new model.
I do not miss a target because the scope does not do all the color view like a S&B might do, but i still think it is a better scope for me than PM II 5-25.
Hey, but that´s just me.
Also thought that should i sell my 6-24, for getting more elevation and tiny bit of high end, i dont think so, well not if i have not looked thru one of the new models, but still dont think that there would be so much more in this new one, that i would buy one.
But will see, there is some great things on that new model.
At the Shot Show 2018 Kahles stated they have no plans to release something new except 3-18. No word about the 5-25. Cheaters!!
Looks like someone answered your question before we were able too . In regards to pricing, give us a call at 916-670-1103 and I'm sure we can work something out on a K624i
Last edited:
Why does it seem like if someone has something critical to say regarding a particular scope that there tends to be an overreaction in its defense? I'm being honest here and not trying to pick a fight with anyone, but I've seen this numerous times before. As an example, I have a Minox ZP5 5-25 and some have claimed that its turrets are the worst, I don't have an issue with the turrets and certainly don't think they are the worst, but I usually try to ask why some shooters think they are and hopefully I might learn something along the way. And forgive me viking and Fig, I just chose your two examples above not to pick on you but to identify how we sometimes respond (and lest you think that I'm saying I'm incapable of this I'm not, in fact, I have my own bias' and have sometimes suffered from foot in mouth disease). We all have our preferences and may not be bothered by some things that others are bothered by; however, there is no need to die by that sword in defense of it is there? I have never seen a post on the Hide that has indicated that you will miss your target because of CA (Chromatic Aberration) it is an optical anomaly that occurs with any lens system, some scopes struggle more than others in this regard, but generally speaking the more you pay for a scope the better that scope will be in regard to overall IQ which includes things like resolution, contrast, depth (thank you ILya) and yes, CA. There have been enough shooters who've used the K624i and have verified that it does have pretty heavy CA, moreso than other scopes at its price point, so this is why some have made comments like "I hope the new K525i doesn't have the CA issues as the K624i". What's wrong with them hoping that Kahles put's out a better product with this newly designed optic? If you have or have had a K624i and have never noticed CA or simply don't care if your scope(s) exhibit CA then great, I've often said "if you don't see CA in your scope, don't go looking for it". The below post by 918v is another example, my K624i parallax felt just right (to me) and I did not have an issue with it, I also didn't have the issues he mentions with the illumination, but he did and it bugged him and rightly so. If a scope is not meeting your expectations or is having issues that it doesn't seem anyone else is having then you ought to have the scope checked out by the manufacturer so they can run it through their diagnostics and make sure its performing to spec or above. In this day and age of opto-electronics we are going to have issues, nothing is foolproof or perfect and every manufacturer has had scopes returned to them for some type of failure, this is the second law of thermodynamics that rules the universe.
9, it definitely sounds like you may have gotten a bum K624i. I think one of the difficulties we have (myself included) is when we purchase a scope and pay good money for it, we have certain expectations, and first impressions can be tough for us to get over, if the scope doesn't meet those expectations then we will probably post about it.
Listen (this is for the community and not just 918v) if you buy a $3k scope and get it out the first day and the reticle twists or the parallax stops working (similar has happened to me) then there is a lot to gripe about, but it doesn't mean the scope as a whole is worthless or that the manufacturer can't make good scopes. In an ideal world it would be nice to get 2 or even 3 of the same model scope when doing reviews so you can test for sample variation; however, it's not always feasible to do this and can be expensive if you are purchasing the scopes yourself. This is where Killswitchengage really helped out on the old Hide site with his Humbler as a lot of shooters sent him their scopes to verify tracking and optical performance, KSE got to see a lot of sample variation which allowed him to make certain judgements based on multiple samples of the same scope. Some scopes performed poorly over and over again, and one manufacturer even denied there was an issue for a while before they were forced to address it mostly due to the work of KSE and others providing clear evidence to the contrary. This is good for the community and while we all want to defend our purchases or a favorite manufacturer it benefits the community as a whole to provide constructive criticism especially if there is a design flaw , but also even in the little things. I have no doubt that the new K525i will be "better" than the K624i, and isn't this better for the community? If some shooters have issue with the Kahles' CA and Kahles fixes that with a new model, does that not end up making a better scope in the end even if it never bothered you to begin with? Some have question why Kahles needs a 5-25x56 when they already have a 6-24x56, it's close enough right? Well only Kahles can answer that but I'd imagine it has come from market pressure with a 5x erector having been the standard for long range optics for some time now, there are also quite a few competition shooters who use Kahles especially with PRS and I'm sure they've provided all kinds of feedback for how the scope can be even better, even though the K624i is a great scope, there's always room for improvement and I'm guessing the new K525i has incorporated a lot of those improvements. And that is why I'm excited about the new K525i.
Why is saying I like it, and pointing out what I like an overreaction, but paragraph after paragraph of criticism is legitimate and advancing science/civilization? Maybe all those problems with all those scopes you point out really were corrected/solved specifically because you complained... Maybe as soon as those engineers saw your criticism they got right to work. I have no idea who you are.
I only have a handful of $3000+ scopes, so I certainly don’t claim to have your experience or expertise. I’m definitely the guy at the match asking about your rifle and wanting to look through your scope. I’m also the guy who thinks red wine tastes like communion. I’ve drank a lot of it and never tasted citrus, mineral, elderberries, or iambic pentameter. Tastes like wine.
I only have a handful of $3000+ scopes, so I certainly don’t claim to have your experience or expertise. I’m definitely the guy at the match asking about your rifle and wanting to look through your scope. I’m also the guy who thinks red wine tastes like communion. I’ve drank a lot of it and never tasted citrus, mineral, elderberries, or iambic pentameter. Tastes like wine.
It wasn't saying you like it that was criticized, but your comment "I must be low brow and ignorant to like this scope so much" has inference to it. But this is the hard part with forums and any method of communication where we don't get to see body language or don't know the person. Sometimes we say things that seem perfectly harmless to us (if you're married you'll understand right away
) but come off offensive to others. Here's the thing, there is nothing wrong with liking something that others don't, this happens all the time and it's called personal preference. If you like the Kahles K624i and find nothing wrong with it, that's great, I find no fault in that and I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, but if someone else has found an issue with the scope, it doesn't invalidate your experience, but neither should your experience invalidate there's unless they are being completely biased. You're right, you have no idea who I am but irregardless, your follow up comment "... but paragraph after paragraph of criticism is legitimate and advancing science/civilization?" again is another jab on the same level as the previous. I can only assume you are referring to my response and I readily admit that I'm wordy and probably write too much sometimes, but what exactly do you mean by this comment? And in defense of my statements regarding the K624i, where have I ever said it was a bad scope, you won't find that anywhere, in fact I've praised it in many ways, do I criticize it for how much CA it has, yes, but I feel that has been validated by others and not just myself. If you read my entire response above as just criticism then you haven't heard me. The K624i is a great scope and will continue to be a great scope and I think the K525i will be even better, if the K525i suffers from heavy CA like the K624i then it will still be a great scope, but yes, it will come under some criticism for not addressing that issue by some.
k318i MSR2 center is slightly different.
Principle being that only center dot is illuminated. Not whole 1x1mil "+" -center with dot as in other MSR2 reticles.
Also air-gap is larger around center dot, about double compared to "normal" MSR2. Normal MSR2 has 0.1mrad air-gap (minus radius of 0.04mrad center dot to be exact)
I agree...except for "irregardless". To my eyes that's like CA is to WJM308's.Dont get mad bro, you got a lot of good words there
But every one has right for them own opinion, we do believe in democracy, unlike China and Russia.
Wasn’t mad at all, just felt I couldn’t communicate effectively.Dont get mad bro, you got a lot of good words there
Really hope they improved QC - I had three and each had problems ( “smudge” on glass, what looked like a hair on the ret, and terrible CA) which was a great pity as I love the left side windage and the SKMR3 ret is probable my favourite. Obviously everyone will have an opinion on this but I can’t see me buying the Kahles 5-25*56 over another ATACR 5-25 or Minox ZP5 after my poor experience with Kahles
I just went from a K624i to a K318i haven't really gotten to properly get behind it but off the bat i think it controls CA better as everyone has noted. My K624i had pretty prevalent CA from the short amount of time i had it. Concrete light poles at 150/200yds exhibited pretty noticeable CA. Never really got to use it on a bright lit day banging steel. Everything else i loved about the optic though. Turrets are second to none, eyebox is extremely comfortable, reticle is my favorite thus far, and the ability to have LSW. I will say i prefer my windage capped. I'm pretty indifferent about the parallax design but understand it's necessity, it's just i can't see it with arc rings without picking up my head off the gun.
Oh to have young eyes again, as I've gotten older I suffer from presbyopia which is natural for all of us as we age, we just can't focus on things closeup anymore, so regardless of the parallax design I can't really see it or the turret numbers without fully disengaging from my cheek weld to bring my head further back. I wonder if they make prescription shooting glasses, but then I worry it's going to throw something else off. If I were to shoot competitions and had a stage where I had to change my elevation a lot I imagine I'd be pretty slow, I suppose this is where the Christmas tree rets and Horus style might come in handy, or better yet to have something like the Revic where your values are displayed right in the scope, then I wouldn't have to lift my head at all.
Back to Rodney's question, was the K525i at the NRA show and did anyone get a chance to fondle it?
