Rifle Scopes New Minox 5x25x56 LR
- Thread starter Danrobberg
- Start date
Can anyone compare the minox LR to the 5-25 atacr? I'm looking for a 5-25 scope and I had originally decided to look for a used NF, but this minox might be a better option. I just wish there was more information out there about these scopes.
I’m still very pleased with the LR. I also have the ZP5 MR4 and truthfully I don’t believe I’d buy another ZP5 now that I have been using the LR. The controls are identical, the reticles are essentially the same, and the LR glass quality is close enough to the ZP5 that unless one needs an elite tier optic it’s not worth the extra cost. Tracking seems to be without issues, but the same could be said about an SWFA SS or XTR II, really what you’re buying here is exceptional glass. I’ve never seen glass this good at this price point. In my opinion the LR is a better optic than the other sub 2k options. Side by side with a razor I’d absolutely choose the LR.
My opinion is just a sample size of one, and with time hopefully others have similar experience with it.
My opinion is just a sample size of one, and with time hopefully others have similar experience with it.
great feedback,thank you!i'm waiting for the zp5 mr4 availability from my dealer and if not available i'll buy a long range;
did you use it in "hard"conditions mostly cold weather ?the rifle i want to scope will be use for backpack hunting and reliability and ruggedness is really important for me.
PSi still don't understand why the long range is so much cheaper than the zp5 as they seems so similars?
The LR is an amazing optic for the price. The resolution is better then any scope I know of in its price range. The micro contrast and IQ is very close to the ZP5. Mine tracks consistent top to bottom. I like the reticle illumination and reticle for hunting.
So why buy a ZP5 then? Well its simply better. The LR weakness is more CA and a smaller eyebox. Also at dusk it becomes more difficult to see through sooner then some other options.
Moving to a ZP5 you gain a forgiving eyebox and better IQ in that you can see mirage easier, you can see through mirage easier, no CA, the small details are slightly cleaner.
Is it worth the money over a LR? Practically thinking no but there are still Improvements. I run a ZP5 for competing and really like it over the LR. Hunting I'll take the LR for the center cross in the reticle.
The LR in my opinion is at the top of the lower tier 1 optics.
So why buy a ZP5 then? Well its simply better. The LR weakness is more CA and a smaller eyebox. Also at dusk it becomes more difficult to see through sooner then some other options.
Moving to a ZP5 you gain a forgiving eyebox and better IQ in that you can see mirage easier, you can see through mirage easier, no CA, the small details are slightly cleaner.
Is it worth the money over a LR? Practically thinking no but there are still Improvements. I run a ZP5 for competing and really like it over the LR. Hunting I'll take the LR for the center cross in the reticle.
The LR in my opinion is at the top of the lower tier 1 optics.
“Hard conditions”, no. Cold weather in the Rocky Mountain region, yes.
The LR is cheaper because the ZP5 is a better scope. How much quantifiable “better” is debatable. I really like my ZP5 but find the LR to be good enough for most of my needs. So what does the ZP5 do or have that the LR doesn’t? Full illumination, locking diopter, marginally better glass, ever so slightly different dimensions that lend to a better experience behind the scope (eye box) for whatever differences there are mechanically inside the device. Overall the differences are very minimal and to me, it’s splitting hairs, but there are actual differences which make the ZP5 better than the LR. If someone is happy with a razor or k624i, they’ll probably be happier with a LR. If your scope budget starts at $3k then you probably will be happier with the ZP5 over the LR.
Hi, how about the reticle is still visible at lowest magnification, or maybe can be lost against tick background? Regards
It can still be lost but if you turn on the illumination only the center illuminates and you can see it clearly.
I'm not US based, the price difference between the ZP5 and LR is more like a 20% difference rather than your 50%.
I guess at that difference the ZP5 is probably worth $500 more.
How much worse is the CA in the LR?
In my case None of the ZP5s (3) have any CA unless you try to create it. Even then it was hardly noticeable. The LR (1) is worse then the Razor, Cronus, IOR. But better then a PST gen 2 by a fair bit. I dont have any other mid range optics to compare with.
You make a good point on the US vs CA pricing will make a difference in if the ZP5 is worth it. For $500 more ZP5 everyday! At $1550 more up here....
On the ca not trying to argue but maybe i got a good one or something but hardly any ca and i put it better than cronus and razor gen 2. Its honestly 1 or 2 on my list overall not owning to many high end. Had a steiner m5 cronus and been around nightforce atacr and razor gen 2.
You might have. There can be variations for sure sample to sample. Some brands are more then others. Mine had to go back for a sticking parallax so I was hoping it would "fix" the CA. The report said new erector assembly but there was no change in CA. Maybe it comes from a different place in the optic?
I also am very picky with glass and notice little details that a lot of guys miss so my definition of lots maybe skewed.
I could also add that on a day that is not prone to CA the Razor and LR are very comparable but on a High CA conditions the LR was not as good in my case. But even with the additional CA you could define the target edges better with the LR. AND I should say the CA is not bad with any of them.
Next match I think one of the guys will have a LR there I'll have a look through his and see how it compares. Wont be a true test but could give some idea.
Will do if he is there. Mine was one of the first ones in canada. I highly recommend the LR to guys up here who are looking to spend Razor money. I like the LR as well
The Canadian or other region pricing is a valid point and something I didn’t consider because I live in the USA. Here an LR is ~$2000 and the ZP5 is ~$3000. Given the differences I’ve observed between both and the price spread, I lean towards the LR as best value for the dollar. If the difference in price were closer, say ~$500, then I might think that the premium ZP5 would be worth seriously considering. Still though, I’m of the opinion that you’re not gaining much at the $500 - $1000 difference between optics.
As to CA, my LR is nearly completely devoid of any CA. Even in bright reflective snow covered conditions, and really straining to try to pick it out, I couldn’t find CA like what is normally seen on other sub 2k optic choices. My example of the LR is optically superior to the razor II and does not have perceptible CA. The razor II’s I’ve had and others I’ve used do not have much CA to begin with. My LR’s glass is excellent and outstanding in that point, especially since CPRS has an example with enough CA that it is a nuisance.
I dont believe I have ever said that the CA is a nuisance with the LR simply that it is noticeable and more the the Razor in my sample. Having said that I easily see CA in a Razor, Cronus level optics as well so It could be I simply notice it more then most people. In no case is it distracting like in some cheaper optics. Also in conditions not prone to creating CA the LR is not worse then the Razor. Its only in a high CA conditions that I see more with the LR.
I absolutely agree that the LR is optically superior to the Razor. Even with (in my case) more CA with the LR the edges that are showing the CA are easier to define then with the Razor. If you look at optical charts but have a black, blue, green, red what I have found with numerous optics the Razor included it that if you "focus" your parallax well looking at black, blue, green will all resolve best but red will not focus. If you focus on the red then blue, Green will not resolve as well. Because the colors dont all overlay on the same plane edges are not as defined this will automatically make for less IQ. So even though the LR displays more volume of CA the LR still has a better target image then the Razor because you can see through it more. Again this is in high CA conditions.
In no way do I want to leave the impression that the LR is not good as it is by far the best for IQ I've seen in its price range. Even in my case the CA is NOT bad. But it has some "draw backs" when compared to better optics. It is hard to quantify and tell the differences and not leave the impression that a optic is poor. There are so many details in a optic at this level.
Two people have come on now with samples that have very little CA in their LR that is awesome! If mine is a odd one out here that would be good. I really like the LR and highly recommend over the Razor.
How is your eyebox for size in comparison to a Razor? Mine is noticeably smaller side to side and back and forwards particularly in low light. Once again keep in mind its not bad just worse then very good. I mostly notice it with shooting competitions not hunting. For hunting I see it as a non-factor.
Thanks, CPRS. I wrote my comments at 1:30am after a long day and “nuisance” was the first word I came up with to try to describe what you’ve written beforehand on the LR’s CA.
I don’t have razors anymore but my shooting buddies and family members do. A few months back I did a lot of side by side comparisons between the two. Doing this in the past solidified the ZP5 as “vastly superior” to the razor gen II. The LR compared to the razor is a better scope, but I also wouldn’t go as far to place it like the ZP5 against the razor. I’m not sure how this thread has morphed into an LR vs Razor discussion, probably because that’s the closest scope in quality and price. There’s valid reasons to talk about the LR in terms of how it compares with the razor. Both scopes fill the sub-elite-tier optic class and in my experience and opinion, the LR is the best scope in that category. Though it does have its shortcomings and I agree that the eye box is tighter than the razor. It’s not perfect but it does its job very well, especially at its price point.
I don’t have razors anymore but my shooting buddies and family members do. A few months back I did a lot of side by side comparisons between the two. Doing this in the past solidified the ZP5 as “vastly superior” to the razor gen II. The LR compared to the razor is a better scope, but I also wouldn’t go as far to place it like the ZP5 against the razor. I’m not sure how this thread has morphed into an LR vs Razor discussion, probably because that’s the closest scope in quality and price. There’s valid reasons to talk about the LR in terms of how it compares with the razor. Both scopes fill the sub-elite-tier optic class and in my experience and opinion, the LR is the best scope in that category. Though it does have its shortcomings and I agree that the eye box is tighter than the razor. It’s not perfect but it does its job very well, especially at its price point.
Lol! It sure is a testament to Vortex's popularity. I find it much simpler to reference the vortex options as "everyone" has opportunity to see them in the wild. But i'll have to admit I am slowly dispersing my Vortex...
I see every optic as having some shortcoming even tier 1. But along with that they all have a strong point as well. If we look at them logically as tools to do a job each one is perfect in its place.
Just some are more perfect then others
On another note I just got the Minox X-Range Binos so far not bad.... maybe I'll have to become a Minox fan boy
I see every optic as having some shortcoming even tier 1. But along with that they all have a strong point as well. If we look at them logically as tools to do a job each one is perfect in its place.
Just some are more perfect then others
On another note I just got the Minox X-Range Binos so far not bad.... maybe I'll have to become a Minox fan boy
Hi , the reticle is visible at 5x ?Twice as big. It is nicely visible at 5x it seems a bit big at 25 if your used to the thin lined optics but I think its perfect balance for full range of mag use. Most optics are really 10-25 because their reticles become useless at low mag. Typically when on low mag you wish to make a quick engagement so a defined ret is very use full. My opinion
Cm at 100 m so the center cross line thickness is 0.08 mil.
Yes the center cross is nicely usable at 5x with the illumination turned on.
1) Yes, it's worth the 20% more for the ZP5.
2) CA performance is not the big difference between the LR and the ZP5 and it quite excellent in both. CA is slightly better on the ZP5 than the LR as are most aspects of optical performance such as resolution, color rendition, contrast, edge to edge clarity. All of these areas are also areas of good performance for both of these scopes. The big differences I found are:
a) Field of view. The LR's field of view is better than average for it's price point but it is still a good bit behind the ZP5.
b) Depth of field. The LR actually has a quite poor depth of field relative to most optics at it's price point. This is the optics weakest measure of performance. The ZP5's DoF is excellent even for it's price point making it much, much, better than the LR.
Basically, the ZP5 is an exceptionally well rounded optical design that I think is probably above the average even in it's lofty price bracket. The LR is well above average for it's price bracket in most areas of optical performance and not terribly far from the ZP5 in some areas but it is not as well rounded a total design and does have poor depth of field.
BTW, it shouldn't be too long before I get the full LR and ZP5 reviews up as they are both written. They are just awaiting some comment / details from the Minox / Blaser engineers.
I like the LR reticle better than MR4 reticle in the ZP5 (even though it's almost the same thing). Losing the hashes in the upper right of the MR4 does a lot IMO and seems much cleaner and better for spotting impacts/splash. I find those hashes hanging out there distracting. Also the LR looks a lot like the Kahles' SKMR3 with the top chopped off (which is cool IMO).
I hope I come across one of these out in the wild soon to check out.
I hope I come across one of these out in the wild soon to check out.
Last edited:
Did you ever get your hands on a XTR3?
I'm contemplating between the Burris and the Minox LR/ZP5.
@Spartan Precision Arms is who I bought mine through. He seems to be the main importer so he could answer better.
Scope is very much alive. I’m the exclusive distributor for the LR scope here in the states which is why you don’t see it at the other traditional dealers. Please see below for product page.
https://www.minox.com/us/hunting/MINOX-Riflescope-Long-Range-5-25x56/80107665
https://www.minox.com/us/hunting/MINOX-Riflescope-Long-Range-5-25x56/80107665
Thanks for the info!!! Don't need one now, but if I pursue a Sako/Tikka 7mm Rem Mag I may.
Kind of an odd request, can anybody compare this to the Leica PRS 6-30x56?
These are the two scopes I'm considering. I like everything about the Leica except I'm not sold on the reticles. I think I'd like this reticle more, but I'm not sure about the turrets and glass. I'm sure the glass is good from a contrast and resolution perspective, but what about DOF? I've heard mixed reviews about the ZP5 turrets, and I'm having a hard time believing the LR turrets would be an improvement since it's basically a budget model ZP5.
Really waiting for BigJim to post his review.
These are the two scopes I'm considering. I like everything about the Leica except I'm not sold on the reticles. I think I'd like this reticle more, but I'm not sure about the turrets and glass. I'm sure the glass is good from a contrast and resolution perspective, but what about DOF? I've heard mixed reviews about the ZP5 turrets, and I'm having a hard time believing the LR turrets would be an improvement since it's basically a budget model ZP5.
Really waiting for BigJim to post his review.
Glass is good as you assumed, turrets are excellent as well. In my limited experience the turrets are better than steiner P4XI, bushnell XRS2, Burris XTR3, and nightforce NX8. It’s a very smooth turret with crisp clicks, plus the zero stop is stupid simple.
Great scope turrets are some of the best. Better than xrs2 cronus I'd say pretty equal to the Atacr of my buddies. I think it competes well with atarc. Lowlights is out of this world on the minox.
I will look threw it at 5 power tomorrow. Been a while since I had it that low. With it being ffp it's going to be very small and tree unusable but with that bigger floating dot might make it work. I never really run my scopes under 8 power even hunting.
Better then most 5-25. I use it at 5 for close still engagements. Not very usable for old eyes and moving game. Young eyes and good mental sight picture control you can.
If you will be using 5x a lot you will be better served with something else.
As a cross over long range once in awhile close stand shot its one of my top picks.
Similar threads
