New Kahles K328i

[cruiserweight]

Yeah, the price jump is got me asking if the juice is worth the squeeze. It’s a big jump. I wonder if the glass has improved.
Kinda stuck between choosing zco or Theta or kahles, Resolution vs fov.

For what little it’s worth I had the choice between the kahles or the Zco 5-27, the fov on the Kahles won me over. The fov is ridiculously large and it makes it hard to go back to shooting other optics. The glass is on par with my S&B PMII to my relatively inexperienced eyes.

 

[FLguy55]

Yeah, the price jump is got me asking if the juice is worth the squeeze. It’s a big jump. I wonder if the glass has improved.
Kinda stuck between choosing zco or Theta or kahles, Resolution vs fov.

What are you running now, out of curiosity?

FWIW, my take on the three having run all 3 at this point (though time is still a little limited behind the 328 and have not run it in a match yet):

I'll start at the top with the TT. TT Glass truly is on another level, including over ZCO (of course you'll never hear a ZCO owner admit this). I've quite literally run everything from Athlon Cronus to TT, and when I first got my TTs I compared side by side with 3 different ZCOs at 3 different matches and the difference is clear. I shoot in the Southeast so the ability to cut and read mirage is a huge factor for me, and the TT is on another level. This will sound crazy, but no joke, the Razor G3 is 2nd to only the TT in my book with this. The TT Turrets are great, of course, including the feel, repeatability, tracking consistency, and the tooless zero stop is GREAT. This is also the first optic I've owned that once I zero it on Friday at a 2-day PRS match, I have literally not once have had to change my zero for the rest of the weekend. Depth of field is great on the TT. FOV is one of the best on the market, being about identical to the Razor G3 and clearly wider than ZCO, but of course the 328 beats them out (Swaro finally flexing the patent...). Lastly, of every optic I've run, not one of them can be cranked to max magnification and be just as nice to be behind as say 18x like the TT can. It's actually pretty wild. My single gripe with the TT is the gen3xr reticle. The way the hash marks grow throughout each MIL is a little wonky and I really wish there was .5 mil marks on the main line. In the end, the TT deserves to be priced over all the rest.

ZCO: Really good optic and built like a tank. Eye box is nice and easy to get behind with these, and glass is very good. One thing you'll notice immediately is the FOV if you get behind a ZCO at 20x and then get behind a Razor G3 and a TT at 20x right next to it. The FOV numbers seem a little "fluffed" in the specs. I have a feeling they sacrificed a little FOV to make the eye box super nice. ZCO FOV is closer to say a Mark 5 HD. Turrets on the ZCO are great and I personally love the option of a 10 mil. ZCO reticle designs are really nice, but they are a little thicker than many others. ZCO's design of the hash mark layout is extremely well thought out and super easy to use while on the clock in say a PRS match. Depth of field on these is also very good. ZCOs track, are dependable, and hold zero. The ZCO cuts mirage better than most but just doesn't "see the mirage" like the TT does (again, the TT glass is just kinda crazy in what it can do). Ultimately, I'd say the ZCO is appropriately priced in the market and is worth it and certainly won't lose you a match.

I posted my thoughts about the 328i a couple posts above here. I'm excited to get more time behind it in order to form more solid comparisons but initial impressions are very good. My initial gut impression is that I do immediately prefer it over the ZCO right out of the gate based on the glass and the FOV. The one big question that nobody can answer yet is long term durability. For instance, the K525 had issues when left out in the sun (rumor has it they fixed that in the 525 DLR). The Razor G3s have parallax failures (I and a few friends have got bit by this one). These types of things take time to come to the surface but of course we optimistically hope nothing pops up.

You'll see Swaro discount certs popping up on the Hide PX all the time from PRS guys off prize tables. I used one to get mine. If you can grab one of those and get the 328 for under 4k, even this early on in its life I'd say it's a great buy.

 

[carbonbased]

What are you running now, out of curiosity?

FWIW, my take on the three having run all 3 at this point (though time is still a little limited behind the 328 and have not run it in a match yet):

I'll start at the top with the TT. TT Glass truly is on another level, including over ZCO (of course you'll never hear a ZCO owner admit this). I've quite literally run everything from Athlon Cronus to TT, and when I first got my TTs I compared side by side with 3 different ZCOs at 3 different matches and the difference is clear. I shoot in the Southeast so the ability to cut and read mirage is a huge factor for me, and the TT is on another level. This will sound crazy, but no joke, the Razor G3 is 2nd to only the TT in my book with this. The TT Turrets are great, of course, including the feel, repeatability, tracking consistency, and the tooless zero stop is GREAT. This is also the first optic I've owned that once I zero it on Friday at a 2-day PRS match, I have literally not once have had to change my zero for the rest of the weekend. Depth of field is great on the TT. FOV is one of the best on the market, being about identical to the Razor G3 and clearly wider than ZCO, but of course the 328 beats them out (Swaro finally flexing the patent...). Lastly, of every optic I've run, not one of them can be cranked to max magnification and be just as nice to be behind as say 18x like the TT can. It's actually pretty wild. My single gripe with the TT is the gen3xr reticle. The way the hash marks grow throughout each MIL is a little wonky and I really wish there was .5 mil marks on the main line. In the end, the TT deserves to be priced over all the rest.

ZCO: Really good optic and built like a tank. Eye box is nice and easy to get behind with these, and glass is very good. One thing you'll notice immediately is the FOV if you get behind a ZCO at 20x and then get behind a Razor G3 and a TT at 20x right next to it. The FOV numbers seem a little "fluffed" in the specs. I have a feeling they sacrificed a little FOV to make the eye box super nice. ZCO FOV is closer to say a Mark 5 HD. Turrets on the ZCO are great and I personally love the option of a 10 mil. ZCO reticle designs are really nice, but they are a little thicker than many others. ZCO's design of the hash mark layout is extremely well thought out and super easy to use while on the clock in say a PRS match. Depth of field on these is also very good. ZCOs track, are dependable, and hold zero. The ZCO cuts mirage better than most but just doesn't "see the mirage" like the TT does (again, the TT glass is just kinda crazy in what it can do). Ultimately, I'd say the ZCO is appropriately priced in the market and is worth it and certainly won't lose you a match.

I posted my thoughts about the 328i a couple posts above here. I'm excited to get more time behind it in order to form more solid comparisons but initial impressions are very good. My initial gut impression is that I do immediately prefer it over the ZCO right out of the gate based on the glass and the FOV. The one big question that nobody can answer yet is long term durability. For instance, the K525 had issues when left out in the sun (rumor has it they fixed that in the 525 DLR). The Razor G3s have parallax failures (I and a few friends have got bit by this one). These types of things take time to come to the surface but of course we optimistically hope nothing pops up.

You'll see Swaro discount certs popping up on the Hide PX all the time from PRS guys off prize tables. I used one to get mine. If you can grab one of those and get the 328 for under 4k, even this early on in its life I'd say it's a great buy.

So, maybe I missed it but exactly what models of the ZCO and TT are you referring to? 527 and 5-25? 840 and 7-35?

What is your take on flare resistance & ZCO/TT/Kahles 328? Especially at +20x.

I think that’s an underrated spec. You can read between the lines in reviews that NF 7-35 is very good in this area, but for some reason it’s not viewed as that important. (I’m not a fanboy, don’t own a 7-35, just a NX8 4-32 which is very flare resistant).

 

[FLguy55]

So, maybe I missed it but exactly what models of the ZCO and TT are you referring to? 527 and 5-25? 840 and 7-35?

What is your take on flare resistance & ZCO/TT/Kahles 328? Especially at +20x.

I think that’s an underrated spec. You can read between the lines in reviews that NF 7-35 is very good in this area, but for some reason it’s not viewed as that important. (I’m not a fanboy, don’t own a 7-35, just a NX8 4-32 which is very flare resistant).

My experience is with the ZCO 527 and TT 525.

I have never really experienced much flaring unless the sun happens to be in just the right position, which I have found sun shades to help with. I have had it happen once or twice with the Tangent, first thing in the morning to some extent, but could still make out the target and make shots. The TT also doesn't have a sun shade.

 

[NateVA]

The TT also doesn't have a sun shade.

It is odd that the sun shade they sell is like 5 inches or something.

 

[carbonbased]

My experience is with the ZCO 527 and TT 525.

I have never really experienced much flaring unless the sun happens to be in just the right position, which I have found sun shades to help with. I have had it happen once or twice with the Tangent, first thing in the morning to some extent, but could still make out the target and make shots. The TT also doesn't have a sun shade.

Thx for the clarification man.

I’m definitely comparing like to like (no shade or with shade).

Here’s a crappy little test I did in which I learned a lot:

Flare / Glare / Backlit notes on 4 scopes (NX8 4-32, Razor Gen II 4.5-27, Razor LHT 4.5-22, S&B 5-25)

Here is an unscientific (and flawed) BACKLIT flare resistance test of four scopes I own. I aimed them under a setting sun during one single session. It’s flawed in the way that I didn’t have shades for two of the scopes. Plus dust, flare from improvised sunshades, and possible flare from a...

www.snipershide.com

 

[FLguy55]

It is odd that the sun shade they sell is like 5 inches or something.

I don't think they even offer one anymore. The shade off my Schmidt 6-36 threads on (all be it with a little resistance) and I've heard the Kahles 525 shade threads right on. I have threaded on a Kahles sunshade on the TT but it was my buddy's and he wasn't certain if it was off one of his 525s or off a 624.

At some point I'll figure out how to gut the silly ARD that comes with the TT and just use it as a sunshade. Don't think I'll be doing any counter sniper work any time soon where I'll need an ARD. Don't know why the hell they send that thing.

 

[NateVA]

At some point I'll figure out how to gut the silly ARD that comes with the TT and just use it as a sunshade. Don't think I'll be doing any counter sniper work any time soon where I'll need an ARD. Don't know why the hell they send that thing.

That'll likely be what I try when I eventually want a sun shade solution. How long is the ARD anyway? It looks about 1.5-2" but I'm not sure from looking at pictures online.

 

[FLguy55]

That'll likely be what I try when I eventually want a sun shade solution. How long is the ARD anyway? It looks about 1.5-2" but I'm not sure from looking at pictures online.

Yeah it's only a couple inches.

I stand corrected: I do see that obnoxiously long sun shade on their site now. yikes.

 

[carbonbased]

Yeah it's only a couple inches.

I stand corrected: I do see that obnoxiously long sun shade on their site now. yikes.

Yeah, it’s pretty long.

Maybe what, an inch or two longer than the shade for the Razor G2 4.5-27?

 

[NateVA]

Yeah, it’s pretty long.
View attachment 8527293

Maybe what, an inch or two longer than the shade for the Razor G2 4.5-27?

View attachment 8527289

Just based on pictures the TT one looks about 5" long which ends up looking a bit comical. With "glass" as good as theirs I can't imagine they need more than a 2.5-3" one but I'm sure they have some kind of reason for it.

 

[FLguy55]

Alright, so took the TT 525P and the 328i DLR out today for a few hours and a few of us compared. Mirage wasn't too bad but was there, and it was quite windy so it was still interesting to see which optics were resolving impacts at 1015 yards on steel the best but also reading and cutting through the mirage (something TT is fantastic at). I'm just gonna say it: I don't think I've seen another optic with glass that is right there with Tangent like this one. Some have come close, at least in ideal conditions (good lighting, minimal mirage) but this thing is right there and the image also seems to pop just a bit more. A couple guys found the Kahles more clear than the TT, though all optics' diopters were set to my eye and that can play into that perception of course. The FOV on the 328 is wild. It's like 4 mil wider from end to end on same magnification compared to the widest FOVs on the market (like TT and Razor G3). The parallax forgiveness and DOF are fantastic on the 328, similar to how the TT excels in these categories. Eye box is a touch more forgiving on the TT.

If I woke up tomorrow and both of my Tangents had been mysteriously replaced with 328s overnight, I wouldn't mind a bit and probably would never look back. I'll likely be getting more 328s down the road and start replacing the others I have on other rifles.

 

[The Knuckle]

What are you running now, out of curiosity?

FWIW, my take on the three having run all 3 at this point (though time is still a little limited behind the 328 and have not run it in a match yet):

I'll start at the top with the TT. TT Glass truly is on another level, including over ZCO (of course you'll never hear a ZCO owner admit this). I've quite literally run everything from Athlon Cronus to TT, and when I first got my TTs I compared side by side with 3 different ZCOs at 3 different matches and the difference is clear. I shoot in the Southeast so the ability to cut and read mirage is a huge factor for me, and the TT is on another level. This will sound crazy, but no joke, the Razor G3 is 2nd to only the TT in my book with this. The TT Turrets are great, of course, including the feel, repeatability, tracking consistency, and the tooless zero stop is GREAT. This is also the first optic I've owned that once I zero it on Friday at a 2-day PRS match, I have literally not once have had to change my zero for the rest of the weekend. Depth of field is great on the TT. FOV is one of the best on the market, being about identical to the Razor G3 and clearly wider than ZCO, but of course the 328 beats them out (Swaro finally flexing the patent...). Lastly, of every optic I've run, not one of them can be cranked to max magnification and be just as nice to be behind as say 18x like the TT can. It's actually pretty wild. My single gripe with the TT is the gen3xr reticle. The way the hash marks grow throughout each MIL is a little wonky and I really wish there was .5 mil marks on the main line. In the end, the TT deserves to be priced over all the rest.

ZCO: Really good optic and built like a tank. Eye box is nice and easy to get behind with these, and glass is very good. One thing you'll notice immediately is the FOV if you get behind a ZCO at 20x and then get behind a Razor G3 and a TT at 20x right next to it. The FOV numbers seem a little "fluffed" in the specs. I have a feeling they sacrificed a little FOV to make the eye box super nice. ZCO FOV is closer to say a Mark 5 HD. Turrets on the ZCO are great and I personally love the option of a 10 mil. ZCO reticle designs are really nice, but they are a little thicker than many others. ZCO's design of the hash mark layout is extremely well thought out and super easy to use while on the clock in say a PRS match. Depth of field on these is also very good. ZCOs track, are dependable, and hold zero. The ZCO cuts mirage better than most but just doesn't "see the mirage" like the TT does (again, the TT glass is just kinda crazy in what it can do). Ultimately, I'd say the ZCO is appropriately priced in the market and is worth it and certainly won't lose you a match.

I posted my thoughts about the 328i a couple posts above here. I'm excited to get more time behind it in order to form more solid comparisons but initial impressions are very good. My initial gut impression is that I do immediately prefer it over the ZCO right out of the gate based on the glass and the FOV. The one big question that nobody can answer yet is long term durability. For instance, the K525 had issues when left out in the sun (rumor has it they fixed that in the 525 DLR). The Razor G3s have parallax failures (I and a few friends have got bit by this one). These types of things take time to come to the surface but of course we optimistically hope nothing pops up.

You'll see Swaro discount certs popping up on the Hide PX all the time from PRS guys off prize tables. I used one to get mine. If you can grab one of those and get the 328 for under 4k, even this early on in its life I'd say it's a great buy.

Yeah I have a ZCO TT and a razor G3, which is why I asked if yhe juice was worth the squeeze. Especially with how good the razor is both resolution and fov. It’s tough.
The more I think about it the more I think I will wait on the Kahles.
Actually The new gen2 march 5-42 wide angle might get my money

 

[FLguy55]

Yeah I have a ZCO TT and a razor G3, which is why I asked if yhe juice was worth the squeeze. Especially with how good the razor is both resolution and fov. It’s tough.
The more I think about it the more I think I will wait on the Kahles.
Actually The new gen2 march 5-42 wide angle might get my money

If not for my razor gen 3 going down on me at a match, I’d probably still be running them. It’s a fantastic all around optic, especially for the money. I will say though, they didn’t seem to hold zero like my TTs do, and that floating zero stop was starting to drive me nuts. Glass wise though, vortex killed it with the G3.

 

[carbonbased]

Just based on pictures the TT one looks about 5" long which ends up looking a bit comical. With "glass" as good as theirs I can't imagine they need more than a 2.5-3" one but I'm sure they have some kind of reason for it.

Just measured the Razor G2’s shade at ~4”. During my flare test with it the shade really helped. One would guess TT chose that length because the scope needed it? Who knows, though.

Just got the factory shade for the S&B 5-25, which (sans shade) had sucked the hardest during my flare test. The hood is really short! Hmmmm

I’ve got more flare tests to do.

 

[Nik H]

Yeah, it’s pretty long.
View attachment 8527293

Maybe what, an inch or two longer than the shade for the Razor G2 4.5-27?

View attachment 8527289

I have an actual TT sunshade. I don't believe it is as long as the photo above by any stretch of the imagination.

I never use it so not sure. I am going to measure it now.

 

[NateVA]

I have an actual TT sunshade. They are not as long as the photo above by any stretch of the imagination.

Well if they ever come back in stock I'll grab one. But that does appear to be the photo they provide on the page where you buy the sun shade. Do you have a picture of it in the real world?

 

[TheOE800]

I have an actual TT sunshade. They are not as long as the photo above by any stretch of the imagination.

I’m not sure that’s the same sunshade you have tbh

 

[Nik H]

3.5 Inches...the ARD is way better but I don't use that either.

 

[NateVA]

3.5 Inches...the ARD is way better but I don't use that either.

I'll grab a sun shade whenever they come back in stock just to have in case. If they've become longer since you bought yours at least I'll have a solution if I ever need to pole-vault over a creek or something.

 

[GenericBadGuy]

I had an K328i. Yes, the field of view is massive. The optical clarity is good. Not TT good, but good.

Mine had ghosting and image softness around the edge of the lens in a ring that drove me nuts. I think they should have added a field stop to hide that small bit of the edge of the lens. Even at the expense of some of the field of view.

Compared to an TT 525p I had, the field of view was a big benefit. You could stay at a higher zoom while still being able to see the same fov. The Tangent turrets are better. Rezero on the TT is easier. My Spuhr mount caused the parallax to stick on the K328i, but that was because of the Spuhr design.

I wish that Kahles came out with SKMR+ reticle without alternating sub mil ticks. I also feel like if Kahles came out with a 6-36 with this fov it would be a slam dunk. The K328i just wasn't for me.

 

[Covertnoob5]

I had an K328i. Yes, the field of view is massive. The optical clarity is good. Not TT good, but good.

Mine had ghosting and image softness around the edge of the lens in a ring that drove me nuts. I think they should have added a field stop to hide that small bit of the edge of the lens. Even at the expense of some of the field of view.

Compared to an TT 525p I had, the field of view was a big benefit. You could stay at a higher zoom while still being able to see the same fov. The Tangent turrets are better. Rezero on the TT is easier. My Spuhr mount caused the parallax to stick on the K328i, but that was because of the Spuhr design.

I wish that Kahles came out with SKMR+ reticle without alternating sub mil ticks. I also feel like if Kahles came out with a 6-36 with this fov it would be a slam dunk. The K328i just wasn't for me.

It won’t be a 6-36 but just be patient young padawan. There’s a new horizon coming.

 

[TheOE800]

It won’t be a 6-36 but just be patient young padawan. There’s a new horizon coming.

Not that I’m really hot on Kahles.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Not that I’m really hot on Kahles.

Well if you’re not then nothing to worry about.

 

[NateVA]

It would make sense for them to churn out as many models of scopes as possible with freakish FOV since the patent is up in 1-2 years, right?

 

[Covertnoob5]

It would make sense for them to churn out as many models of scopes as possible with freakish FOV since the patent is up in 1-2 years, right?

The next one is a little more in line with what this one should’ve been.

 

[Imw787]

The next one is a little more in line with what this one should’ve been.

Been hearing rumors of 5-40…

Any ability to share if dropping in 2024 or is this a post Shot Show thing?

 

[NateVA]

The next one is a little more in line with what this one should’ve been.

Possibly a lower erector ratio? 3.5-28 seems cool but wouldn't a lower ratio make the eyebox even more forgiving? I could be way off that's just how I think it works.

Looking forward to seeing more of you on Velayo's channel.

 

[rothgyr]

Possibly a lower erector ratio? 3.5-28 seems cool but wouldn't a lower ratio make the eyebox even more forgiving? I could be way off that's just how I think it works.

If not having it look like a pocket trumpet or limit mounting choices means it has to be a 5-25 or 6-36, bring it on. The strongest selling feature of the k328i hasn't been its erector size, form factor, etc. Kahles' competitive advantage here is the FOV.

I have zero complaints with my 5-25 and 7-35 with regards to the magnification range. Heck, the Leupold sheeple are buying up MK4s like crazy despite it being a freaking 4x erector.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Been hearing rumors of 5-40…

Any ability to share if dropping in 2024 or is this a post Shot Show thing?

Post Shot show thing. Can’t share what it is or isn’t for obvious reasons but it’s definitely taking inspiration from the current leaders.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Possibly a lower erector ratio? 3.5-28 seems cool but wouldn't a lower ratio make the eyebox even more forgiving? I could be way off that's just how I think it works.

Looking forward to seeing more of you on Velayo's channel.

Appreciate that man! We’ve definitely filmed a few things just takes time to get it all out.

In theory yes a lower erector ratio could make it more forgiving but it really depends on the other details of the scope. Length, internal travel, parallax, etc.

 

[stanley_white]

If not having it look like a pocket trumpet or limit mounting choices means it has to be a 5-25 or 6-36, bring it on. The strongest selling feature of the k328i hasn't been its erector size, form factor, etc. Kahles' competitive advantage here is the FOV.

I have zero complaints with my 5-25 and 7-35 with regards to the magnification range. Heck, the Leupold sheeple are buying up MK4s like crazy despite it being a freaking 4x erector.

What is wrong with a 4x erector?

-Stan

 

[TheOE800]

What is wrong with a 4x erector?

-Stan

2002 called and wants it’s technology back.

 

[stanley_white]

2002 called and wants it’s technology back.

So I understand then that outdated designs, even if they work, and meet a customer’s requirements, are bad, because they are outdated.

Roger.



-Stan

 

[TheOE800]

So I understand then that outdated designs, even if they work, and meet a customer’s requirements, are bad, because they are outdated.

Roger.



-Stan

Have you met government procurement?

 

[stanley_white]

Have you met government procurement?

I was asking @rothgyr as since he cared enough to italicize his displeasure regarding a 4x erector I wondered if I was missing something.

I guess I ain't.

-Stan

 

[rothgyr]

ThEOE800 pretty much summed up my thoughts.

My issue with the mk4 is a combo of the eye piece, erector ratio, and the price.

 

[Nik H]

It would be great to see a higher magnification scope that leverages the Swarovski patent. The increased FOV would be welcome.

It would give them an advantage while the patent is in force.

 

[carbonbased]

It would be great to see a higher magnification scope that leverages the Swarovski patent. The increased FOV would be welcome.

It would give them an advantage while the patent is in force.

Yeah, gives them the advantage of me kicking them in the tiny dick!!

Lol patent abuse fuckers

I’m with @koshkin on this one, I’m afraid.

 

[stanley_white]

ThEOE800 pretty much summed up my thoughts.

My issue with the mk4 is a combo of the eye piece, erector ratio, and the price.

Thank you.

It’s more than just the ratio.

Got it.

-Stan

 

[FLguy55]

I've got to ask, especially to those that have actually been behind the 328: What is it that it's lacking that you want in a new model?

 

[Glassaholic]

I've got to ask, especially to those that have actually been behind the 328: What is it that it's lacking that you want in a new model?

I’d like to see a LT version for crossover use, if Kahles would offer the K318i with the wide angle eyepiece like they did with the K525i DLR, I’d be even more interested but K318i is already at almost 33 and I can only image the WA eyepiece may add even more so that is likely why Kahles opted for this design. My personal limit for crossover maxes out around 33oz, it used to be 30oz but there are so few scopes at this magic barrier that I pushed it to include many more options. For a comp gun weight doesn’t really matter but for crossover it does. I am also concerned that 8x erector will make it more finicky but many who’ve seen it say the opposite. Thinking more about this, I loved the K318i but biggest gripe was the narrow FOV and now 6 years later Kahles has the widest FOV, go figure. I think I need to get ahold of one of these to see for myself.

 

[Imw787]

I've got to ask, especially to those that have actually been behind the 328: What is it that it's lacking that you want in a new model?

If you keep the same 28.7 degree apparent field of view at as the k328, a 5-25 version would have a field of view of 10.05 yards @ 100 yards @ 5x and 2.00 yards @ 100 yards @ 25x.

If I can get the FOV the 328 delivers at 12 at 18 on a 5-40 for example I would prefer that.

Briefly been behind a friends 328 and very impressed with what I saw.

 

[Glassaholic]

If I can get the FOV the 328 delivers at 12 at 18 on a 5-40 for example I would prefer that.

Briefly been behind a friends 328 and very impressed with what I saw.

If Kahles comes out with a 5-40 scope with same wide angle eyepiece as the 3-28 you are not going to get any more FOV at 18x than you would on the 3-28 at 18x (or rather they would be very close). The eyepiece affects FOV by degrees based on the magnification regardless of the magnification range of the scope (all things being equal like focal length, etc.), maybe ILya has done a video on this but if not that might be a good one for one of his livecasts on his locals channel as I might be explaining this inadequately... @koshkin

 

[Covertnoob5]

I've got to ask, especially to those that have actually been behind the 328: What is it that it's lacking that you want in a new model?

First off I’d want a more proportional scope. The mounting real estate forward of the center saddle is trash. Can’t use a spuhr with a top rail as the parallax hits. And frankly it just looks ugly. No idea what they were thinking with a 50mm objective. Go 56mm. And less than 8x erector ratio. You can make it longer and not give anything up really.
Kahles essentially built a scope not a single person asked for. It’s not light enough to hunt with. No PRS shooter needs 4x at the bottom end. And no one really wants a 50mm objective except guys looking for hunting scopes but again this isn’t that. The eyepiece is absolutely massive which can cause a clearance issue with some 90 degree bolts. It’s also short for no great reason. I mean PRS guys don’t really care how long a scope is as long as the rest of it is good. Making it longer just provides a more room to get stuff done at a high level.

 

[kthomas]

First off I’d want a more proportional scope. The mounting real estate forward of the center saddle is trash. Can’t use a spuhr with a top rail as the parallax hits. And frankly it just looks ugly. No idea what they were thinking with a 50mm objective. Go 56mm. And less than 8x erector ratio. You can make it longer and not give anything up really.
Kahles essentially built a scope not a single person asked for. It’s not light enough to hunt with. No PRS shooter needs 4x at the bottom end. And no one really wants a 50mm objective except guys looking for hunting scopes but again this isn’t that. The eyepiece is absolutely massive which can cause a clearance issue with some 90 degree bolts. It’s also short for no great reason. I mean PRS guys don’t really care how long a scope is as long as the rest of it is good. Making it longer just provides a more room to get stuff done at a high level.

All good points.

If you are going to make a scope compact (short, smaller objective), it should probably be light(ish) to be appreciated by the crowd that wants a short and compact scope.

I can see maybe a few people saying that while its heavy, maybe it balances better in that form? But again - how a scope balances on a PRS rifle is nobodies concern, not when the rifles are 25+ lbs with weight kits all over it.

 

[NateVA]

First off I’d want a more proportional scope. The mounting real estate forward of the center saddle is trash. Can’t use a spuhr with a top rail as the parallax hits. And frankly it just looks ugly. No idea what they were thinking with a 50mm objective. Go 56mm. And less than 8x erector ratio. You can make it longer and not give anything up really.
Kahles essentially built a scope not a single person asked for. It’s not light enough to hunt with. No PRS shooter needs 4x at the bottom end. And no one really wants a 50mm objective except guys looking for hunting scopes but again this isn’t that. The eyepiece is absolutely massive which can cause a clearance issue with some 90 degree bolts. It’s also short for no great reason. I mean PRS guys don’t really care how long a scope is as long as the rest of it is good. Making it longer just provides a more room to get stuff done at a high level.

This is kind of out of left field but do you "wet mount" your scope mounts/rings? I see Area419 and Spuhr advocate for that but not sure if that's because it's universally better or if it's specific to their rings.

 

[FLguy55]

First off I’d want a more proportional scope. The mounting real estate forward of the center saddle is trash. Can’t use a spuhr with a top rail as the parallax hits. And frankly it just looks ugly. No idea what they were thinking with a 50mm objective. Go 56mm. And less than 8x erector ratio. You can make it longer and not give anything up really.
Kahles essentially built a scope not a single person asked for. It’s not light enough to hunt with. No PRS shooter needs 4x at the bottom end. And no one really wants a 50mm objective except guys looking for hunting scopes but again this isn’t that. The eyepiece is absolutely massive which can cause a clearance issue with some 90 degree bolts. It’s also short for no great reason. I mean PRS guys don’t really care how long a scope is as long as the rest of it is good. Making it longer just provides a more room to get stuff done at a high level.

Yeah I can't disagree with the physical design. It's quite odd. My guess was that whatever particular performance aspects they were prioritizing (FOV, clarity, whatever) that maybe they had to go this route for some reason, but who knows. I also run 60 degree actions so no issues, but I get it.

I will say that 50mm does bring one benefit: Ease of mounting on a rig with a full rail like a gas gun or RPR where you typically have to be worried about your objective clearing. Also, I've also got mine on my NRL Hunter rig where I love the shorter objective side because I put my night vision bridge right in front of my optic so I can hook my thumb over top and I don't have the longest of arms. With my tangent on that setup I was reaching pretty hard and needing to angle my body some in order to get my hand out there. Problem now solved.

If you're a Kahles fan (which historically I am not, at all) this thing is definitely a big step up from a 525. In the end, I gauge optics on their real world performance and don't get hung up on all the numbers & specs because at the end of the day the glass is either great and they perform well functionally (regardless of the numbers) or they don't. For instance, I see no difference in low light gathering between this thing with a 50mm vs my 56mm optics (Razor G3, Tangent, and certainly the ATACR), but people get all up in arms because it's a 50mm and immediately believe that that spec alone means it won't gather good light.

It seems pretty clear they are targeting the competition market here and not crossovers and certainly not the hunting crowd. It's nobody's fault; least of all Kahles. I'd argue this is a very good competition optic.

Anyone who's run a bunch of these different optics knows that it's damn hard to find your perfect optic that checks ALL of your personal boxes. One guy loves the turrets, the next guy doesn't. Same goes with reticles, physical design, etc. I'm still not a huge fan of the SKMR4 (or 4+) reticle, but it's not gonna lose a match. I don't like the top-mounted parallax wheel thing at all but with how good the DOF is on this thing I doubt I'd ever need to touch it.

I don't want to come off as a fan boi here because again, I've hated on Kahles for years, but when the thing has great glass and performs, it's just good. There's a lot of people out here watching too many of Ilya's videos and getting hung up on specs that they don't even truly understand. At the end of the day, you get behind the thing and use it and then form some real world opinions of your own.

 

[TheOE800]

Anyone who's run a bunch of these different optics knows that it's damn hard to find your perfect optic that checks ALL of your personal boxes.

Ugh tell me about it.

 

[Covertnoob5]

This is kind of out of left field but do you "wet mount" your scope mounts/rings? I see Area419 and Spuhr advocate for that but not sure if that's because it's universally better or if it's specific to their rings.

Nope. Never. And I’ve got a 419 mount and several spuhrs. Probably 5 right now. Among others. Hawkins, MPA, etc.