Steiner m5 vs m7

[Hathaway98]

Hi, just looking for some comparison opinions on these optics. DVOR often has Steiners listed at extremely competitive prices, which in my opinion can’t be beat for the price. I have an m5xi 5-25 msr2 and it’s my favorite optic. (Other optics to include Steiner military 4-16, Minox ZP5, leupy mk5hd, sig tango6, Kahles k312 etc.) Wanting to compare m5xi 5-25 to the m7xi 4-28, and 2.9-20. I’ll admit, I am a Steiner fanboy. Also on a cheaper scale, interested in comparing the Burris xtr iii 3.3-18 to the Steiner t5xi 3-15. Lots of controversy on the t5’s glass, but the turrets seem solid. Havnt heard much at all on the xtr iii, but wondering if these cheaper scopes are a better bang for the buck in the $1400ish zone vs the German steiners in the $2500ish zone. Money is relatively tight, but I’m a bit of a glass snob, so if the glass is that much better, I’d swing it. Will set on either a 6.5 creed(for the cheaper optics) and swap my current m5xi to a 338 Norma.(or new high end steiner for 338) I know how subjective optics are, and steiners don’t get a ton of love around here.
Thanks

 

[Friday]

Honestly I don’t think you can go wrong with Steiner, I’m all Steiner and Nightforce, I have 2 M5s one black and one tan, they don’t come close to my 7x35 atacr as far as quality in my opinion but the lower line P4xi is much better quality than SHV Nightforce, and probably equal quality to NXS, all though nothing in my opinion can take an all out beating like Nightforce scopes, that is not my opinion that is a fact, there are some scopes with better glass for sure but your going to pay for it. I have yet to dick around with a T series Steiner but given all the others I have I wouldn’t be afraid to try one. As for an m7 I am actually looking to sell my black m5 to move up to an m7 because I want to see the difference as well. If you go that route let me know how it compares to your M5.

 

[Hathaway98]

Hi Friday, thanks for the reply. I agree with all that u said. Forgot to add my nightforce nxs 3-15 f1 to that list. Totally agree with u. I like the smaller form factor of the m7 2.9-20, but I can actually get the 4-28 a little cheaper…. The m5 is about $300 cheaper than the M7 4-28….. nothing like making decisions harder.

 

[Birddog6424]

@D_TROS has experience with all of those. Maybe he'll chime in.

 

[Jumper]

I have the T5xi and the M7. I sent the M7 back recently for evaluation. The T5xi could resolve objects slightly better than the M7. This isn't supposed to be, hence the reason I sent it in. But there were no other problems with the M7 and probably if I didn't have the T5xi to compare it to I'd have been none the wiser. Anyway, Steiner is replacing the M7 under their lifetime warranty. When I get it back I'll do the same comparison and post my observations here. I'm not an expert but I can do a side by side comparison.

 

[M77]

I have a P4xi 4-16 and a M7xi 4-28, they are both in a different league.
I have used a T5xi 3-15 and was absolutely disappointed with how much CA it had in it.
The M7xi I have is really good optically, nice sharp images and very little CA.
The eye box is easy to get behind, mine is used on my dt srs as a hybrid rifle / match/ hunting rig and the MSR2 reticle is an easy favourite.

Going between my Minox ZP5 and the m7 I'm happy to directly compare the two

 

[Hathaway98]

Its really interesting to me how much variance Steiner seems to have with CA through all their scopes. Although I have heard very few disappointing reports on the M series(especially the m5) but they are there. As far as the T series go’s it seems to be the opposite, with mostly disappointed reports, but a few very high praises.(just my speculation) the only T series I looked at was very disappointing compared to a nightforce shv. I’ve been wondering if Steiner will get that optic sorted out, and maybe it will start a new reputation. Seems to inconsistent for that so far though. My m5 glass seems superb, very comparable to my Minox. My old military 4-16 was the best low light performer I’ve ever seen by far, but the m5 isn’t close. Got a lead on a m7xi 4-28 right now, I’ll see where that goes. I look forward to hearing more from you guys, and the wealth of knowledge on this site.

 

[Hathaway98]

Needless to say, my steiner fanboy status is unchanged. Just curious if some of these issues will be solved down the road, and maybe the issues are just on earlier production runs?

 

[D_TROS]

I have a P4xi 4-16 and a M7xi 4-28, they are both in a different league.
I have used a T5xi 3-15 and was absolutely disappointed with how much CA it had in it.
The M7xi I have is really good optically, nice sharp images and very little CA.
The eye box is easy to get behind, mine is used on my dt srs as a hybrid rifle / match/ hunting rig and the MSR2 reticle is an easy favourite.

Going between my Minox ZP5 and the m7 I'm happy to directly compare the two

The P4 has really good reviews. I have not owned this scope so cant speak to it other than the internet hasnt said anything bad.

As the M5. Just a really solid scope with avg glass to above avg glass (and by that I mean around the NF, USO etc) but flat plains tracks solid. Hated the MSR retc so sold it. Wish I didnt.

The M7 I have is just phenomenal up to about 18 power where it def gets darker on the higher zoomz. (VERY comparable to my TT but drops off fast at higher zoom) That being said there is some very bad M7's CA wise that got through. If you get unlucky with one of those send it back. Thats all I can say on that. Mine is exceptional. Of the 3 Ive looked through that friends shoot, mine is the best but the other 2 arnt bad by any means. Def not as bad as some say. But again if it bothers you, send it back.

I got to look through a 2-20 the other weekend at a match in OK (I was RO and a guy came through with it on) It was snowy and bight out and I could not induce ANY CA whatso ever. Looks to be a solid scope if they keep QC up and price down. Too many options these days. But amazing little package. Guy placed in the top 5 so it tracks also.

Also, my ZP5 is better than any scope Ive owned optics wise other than my TT.


GL!
DT

 

[Hathaway98]

Got a m7xi 4-28 msr 2 coyote brown off eBay for $2015. Shipped today. Excited to see what she looks like. Seemed like a good deal. It has a blemish in the tan coating. Does steiner use cerakote? That’s what it looks like to me. Hardly noticeable without rings, and it’ll never bother me. I do some comparisons as best I can when I get it, and post more opinion up here.

 

[Rocket6R]

This was my post on a different thread.

BTW, I have a MSR2 reticle.

"I purchased my first M7xi in December of 2021 from Optics Planet. I paid $2,774 delivered. I mounted the scope and headed to my shooting spot. There were two things that I immediately noticed. The CAs were absolutely horrible, and the scope could not focus at my 100 yard target. It wouldn’t focus no matter how much I played with the parallax knob and eyepiece. A buddy of mine that I regularly shoot with got behind the scope and he said the same thing. As far as the CAs goes, I had heard that the first runs of these scopes had pretty bad CAs, and Steiner had made improvements to future manufactured M7xi scopes. Was this scope part of the early batch? Before sending the scope back to Optics Planet I took a picture of the serial number. I did this because I had requested an exchange from Optics Planet, and I wanted to make sure they didn’t send me the same scope back. The serial number read 109231xxxx. (By the way, the second M7xi scope’s serial number reads 201081xxxx.)

~I found out later that the first scope was manufactured in 2019 and the second scope was manufactured in 2021. The manufactured year date is the first and third digit in the serial number.~

I sent the first scope back to Optics Planet and received a new M7xi (factory seal on the box from Steiner was undisturbed). I inspected and then mounted the scope on my MPA rifle. The CA’s were still present, but no where as bad as the first scope. Some owners say that if you are right behind the scope, then the CAs tend to disappear. They say CAs are only present when slightly moving your head from side to side. Mine exhibits CAs regardless of my head position behind the scope. The IQ, while better than my first M7xi, is still not as clear as I think it should be, especially at higher magnification. The IQ does clean up a little after focusing the eyepiece after adjusting the parallax knob. The scope does tunnel slightly while adjusting from 4x to 5x, but does not tunnel after that.

I purchased an Athlon Cronus BTR (gen 1) 4.5-29x56 about a year ago. I paid $1,250 delivered for the scope. The scope is manufactured at the LOW factory in Japan. I tested this new M7xi scope against the Cronus today.

IQ: The Cronus has a clearer image over the M7xi, especially going above 20x.

CA: The Cronus has about 3-4x less CAs than the M7xi. The M7xi was fairly prevalent while I had to really search for any CAs with the Cronus.

Tunneling: There was no tunneling with the Cronus while tunneling existed from 4x to 5x with the M7xi.

Turrets: Turrets were far more positive on the M7xi while the Cronus was less “clicky’ and felt a tad mushy."

 

[Stoogey]

I want one of the Steiner M series scopes. I have had the privilege of using one and loved doing so. Naturally the one I want is nearly twice what I paid for my Trijicon, but if and when I can spend that much for one scope, I definitely will buy the M series. It is considered to be a Tier one tactical scope and for good reason. For comparison sake the Vortex Razor HD Gen 2 (by all accounts a nice scope) is a upper level tier 2 scope.

 

[Hathaway98]

So I got my Steiner yesterday. My m7xi 4-28 I ordered ended up being a M5xi 5-25…. Did have the msr ii reticle though. Disappointed, but maybe it’s for the best. The guy sent me a free MDT mount for my trouble, so still a good deal IMO. As for comparison to my other m5xi, this Steiner glass has a slightly orangier appearance.(some might say warmer) I don’t really know my optical terms very well but as far as resolution goes, I am able to resolve just as well, maybe even a touch better with the new scope. My older m5 seems a little more true to color. As for as CA, I’m not sure I fully comprehend the term, but I believe that’s what I’m seeing with the color tinting? If someone who knows would like to give me some real world details on the term, I’d be glad to hear it. I just know what Wikipedia says about it, which I don’t put a ton of faith in. Edge to edge distortion is great and nonexistent until lighting conditions are low.(still quite good). Turrets on the new scope are quite a bit less stiff. I’ve had these steiners out to compare with my ZP5 quite a bit now, and here’s what I think. At 600yds, I have a homemade target. It has a bunch of scrap metal that has been shagged on to it over time to patch things up. Today is about 55*f, 30-40mph crosswinds, and absolutely terrible mirage. The Minox ZP5 eye box is wayyy tighter. The image is better in some ways, but not all. At first glance after parallax was set on all scopes, the steiners actually looked substantially better, and defeated the mirage more easily. This baffled my a bit, so I messed with the Minox a bit more, and found that I had to dial my parallax to infinity(well beyond where it was parallax free) and the image got considerably better. But I would have to say the steiners are better for my eye judging depth of field, and focusing on multiple objects at once. The Minox showed the target very well, but the barbed wire fence about 20 yards behind appeared very blurry.(not able to adjust with the scope, just with my eye eventually refocusing) I could read a “No hunting” sign at 650 yards more clearly with the Minox, but noticed much more eye strain after a few minutes. The steiners are much more comfortable to get behind for me and my eye. My mark 5 and tango 6 did surprisingly well at these ranges, but lower magnification(18x vs 25x) helped them quite a bit, and they weren’t on par once the other scopes were lowered to 18x.(still surprisingly good though) These comparisons are off a tripod, looking through a big picture window, which no doubt distorts some, but all these are looking through the same window. Nothing really said here that hasn’t already been said. Just my thoughts.

 

[smoothy8500]

Here's a quick example of CA, the neon purple fringe on edges, either dark or white objects.

 

[Conqueror]

That’s pretty bad for what these cost.

 

[Hathaway98]

Ok that’s interesting to me. I would have to say that both my Steiners are very good in regards to CA. The Minox is perhaps slightly better, but not a lot. So my understanding would be color fringing and distortion along finer lines. No gripes from me whatsoever in that regard, though I’m obviously only a novice at ID’ing these. But I can definitely see CA in my old Burris xtr 2 quite apparent there. Just didn’t really know what to call it before, just poor glass. But I would say my two steiners are very good. The new Steiner has slightly different color all together, but I really don’t think it’s a CA issue. Only narly noticeable when the scopes are right next to each other. Thanks for the example smoothy8500! It’s probably pretty hard for me to identify much CA with all this wind and mirage.

 

[smoothy8500]

My T5Xi initially was really bad. I sent it in to Steiner and they replaced it with a factory refurbished one. No CA was observed. Illya Koshkin here explained one time that it's not entirely due to glass quality, but if the alignment of the lenses/light path is not correct then it will appear.

 

[Long Range 338]

The M5 is good, the M7 is better. Both track true, the M5 has the nicer 2nd rev indicator but the M7 is more tactile and is an optical improvement IMO. I’ve got both, use both and trust them to be robust and track true.
A big part of this is the MSR and MSR2 reticles. Yes the Schmidt is better optically but is more $$$ and the Kahles is too much like driving a different car speaking of the familiarity of the controls. Either Steiner is a fine scope but for the same money I prefer the M7.