Ah, so the gen3 may still have some CA issues. One thing I noticed with my gen2 was that it was bright... we're talking stupidly bright. I would have to wear darker sunglasses on sunny days and study the image to see the detail because of how bright it was. In overcast days or lower light situations, it really excelled. Had an amazing eyebox from what I remember.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta 5-25 v Minox 5-25 v Nightforce 7-35 v Schmidt & Bender 5-25 v Vortex 4.5-27
- Thread starter hk dave
- Start date
Yeah, I've tried two Gen III Kahles and they both had a good amount of CA. I mentioned this on the previous iteration of the Hide Forum (Scout) and I got chewed out by everybody for being a blasphemer lol.
Thanks for the excellent write up and comparison.
Hope TT sees this thread and finally gets the impetus to modernize their reticle offering as the reticle is IMO the most important factor at this performance level across the scopes.
Other scopes I wish to see in the write up is a Gen 3 Kahles with a SKMR3 reticle and a Vortex AMG.
Only wish I have for your excellent work is a video demonstration of how each scope has its zero adjusted and set.
Hope TT sees this thread and finally gets the impetus to modernize their reticle offering as the reticle is IMO the most important factor at this performance level across the scopes.
Other scopes I wish to see in the write up is a Gen 3 Kahles with a SKMR3 reticle and a Vortex AMG.
Only wish I have for your excellent work is a video demonstration of how each scope has its zero adjusted and set.
This is going to happen with any scope and even Dave has received some backlash from some posters for his excellent review. No matter how much you try to explain where a scope excels, if you say anything that could be perceived negatively you're probably going to get some negative responses, whether it's from a fan or simply from someone who doesn't fully understand, I suppose I've just come to expect that which is why I try to explain as best I can what the issue is and I felt Dave did an even better job in explaining how and why he performed certain tests and qualified when he had his own opinions. I liken it a little bit to the photography world and art, everyone has their own idea of what is pleasing to them, does that make someone else wrong, not at all, we just have different tastes. Image quality (IQ) covers a whole gamut of qualities, it's not just resolution (thought for our sport that is probably near the top), but there's also contrast and color and so forth. Take for instance the Bushnell DMR (original) and their new DMR II, according to Bushnell they did not change the optical formula or the glass but what they did change was their multi-coating formula and to my eyes it made all the difference as the original DMR struggled in low light with a bluish cast and the DMR II I thought performed very well in low light and I didn't experience the bluish cast from the former. My eyes like more contrast and warmer images so my brain probably tells me I prefer the IQ of scopes that exhibit those qualities, does that make other scopes inferior, again not at all, it is definitely more my preference or taste. Take the Kahles Gen III, the scope I had prior was a Steiner T5Xi 5-25 which had all sorts of issues so when the Kahles came I was blown away, the resolution and brightness was insane but as I used it more I noticed the CA more and more and it bugged me. Nothing wrong with the scope at all, just a personal preference and for a while I thought this is just something I'm going to experience with all top tier scopes with high magnification, that is until I bought my first Schmidt and Bender, then I bought a March 3-24x52 which didn't exhibit nearly the amount of CA, and my current Vortex AMG and Minox ZP5 all handle CA better than the Kahles. Again, this doesn't make the Kahles any less inferior in regard to getting rounds on target, but it was a minor annoyance for me.
Did not. However all the scopes give me more than 20 mils of elevation on a 20 moa base so it's more than enough for me.
You can read about it in the "Tracking" section of my review.
Andrew Webber called me recently and I got to chat with him a bit about various things with regards to the TT I own.
He answered many of the my questions honestly and to my satisfaction. Nice gentlemen.
As we were hanging up, I asked if they had any new reticles in mind, and he said he didn't yet, because they're just too busy, but if I could have any reticle in his scope, what would it be, to which i responded "the MR4 by Minox".
He answered many of the my questions honestly and to my satisfaction. Nice gentlemen.
As we were hanging up, I asked if they had any new reticles in mind, and he said he didn't yet, because they're just too busy, but if I could have any reticle in his scope, what would it be, to which i responded "the MR4 by Minox".
Last edited:
Andrew Webber called me recently and I got to chat with him a bit about various things with regards to the TT I own.
He answered many of the my questions honestly and to my satisfaction. Nice gentlemen.
As we were hanging up, I asked if they had any new reticles in mind, and he said he didn't yet, because they're just too busy, but if I could have any reticle in his scope, what would it be, to which i responded "the MR4 by Minox".
That’s one way to plant the seed! Lol hopefully they consider it as an inspiration for their own! I also really like the erb7-b.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If TT had a MR4 or a SKMR3 reticle, I'd actually seriously consider buying one as my next scope. That Gen 2XR reticle is the reason I got rid of my old PH.
Yeah, MR4 or SKMR3 in a TT and it'd be unstoppable. I've relayed this to TT and Mr. Weber before in the past. When I first bought my TT they said no plans for new reticle for at least 5 years.
I recon if enough people make enough noise it takes a very stubborn company to ignore the market for long. I'd happily sell a few rifles/optics for a TT with Minox's MR4 reticle
I bought one of the first Gen3 6-24’s when they shipped. Mine was razor sharp with an awesome eye box like my Henny, but with 3x more CA. So if this was the latest iteration that supposedly addressed the CA problem then what the hell did Gen1 and Gen2 look like???
The other stuff that pissed me off was the parallax ring was really difficult to turn. And there was some reticle jump when I zoomed in and out. The elevation turret clicks were really good turning one way, but felt grungy turning the opposite way, kinda like the surface finish was rough on one side of the sprocket teeth or whatever they use to create the clicks.
Little things, but unbecoming of a $3000 scope.
Any feedback on low light performance of these optics? Specifically the Minox ZP5 5-25x56. Thanks hk Dave for a very informative review on several high end optics.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
I can only speak to the Minox ZP5 as that is the scope that currently sits on my 7mm RSAUM, it is the best low light scope I've looked through. The detail in the shadows, the contrast and brightness are the best my eyes have experienced. Years ago when I began researching and then testing tactical/hunting scopes I decided this was the first test I had to perform, because I hunt with all my rifles they all have to serve double duty and that means they have to be capable of performing very well in low light. After using Steiner, Kahles, Schmidt, Minox and others, my two main rifles have a Minox ZP5 with MR4 reticle and a Vortex AMG with EBR-7 reticle because of how well these scopes perform in low light situations, their weight and their reticles. Not saying the other scopes couldn't cut it in low light, but these two scopes offered the features I was looking for and excelled in low light.
I just got the Minox 5-25 with MR4. I also have/had Henny, various Zeiss, various Leupold, S&B, Kahles, and various NF. Took it to the range this morning, clear day, sun rising directly behind me, 0900.
Glass: This scope is basically a S&B 5-25 that doesn’t tunnel. It is very sharp. It is sharper than my S&B but not by much- trying to resolve 1mm cross on orange dot. The eye box is the same. The viewable area looks the same, does the same thing when moving the elevation/windage controls- top/sides/bottom of the eye box get fuzzy as the erector approaches the end of its travel. It does get slightly darker when you bottom out the erector, but the resolution is not affected. In fact I found it easier to resolve fine detail when the erector was bottomed out. The detail almost washed out with the erector centered, too bright for the conditions. The eye box is no where near as nice as Kahles or Zeiss in terms of presentation. What I mean by that is how the image is displayed. For example, Zeiss and Kahles look like you’re watching a movie inside a theater. S&B/Minox looks like you’re watching the same movie on a 13” TV. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. I was able to induce CA but it is so slight it is almost impossible to see. The least CA of any scope out there. The parallax knob is on the stiff side of turn feel. More stiff than my S&B. Not as stiff as my Kahles. Much smoother than Kahles which feels like trying to turn over a motor with no oil. Also, no parallax at one magnification means no parallax at all magnifications. The mag ring is stiff but smooth and has that nub on there to help you turn it. No reticle jump! Reticle is well centered, only .05 mil off judging by the hash marks. Locking ocular is easy to set and lock.
Turrets: My S&B has the USMC 12 mil turrets. The Minox clicks feel similar to my S&B USMC, more widely spaced than the S&B 14mil turret. The clicks feel good, but not as good as NF ATACR, Henny, Kahles. The second turn indicator feels like you’re running into a wall inside a padded room. It is a pos feature. It is not a feature. It sucks. I’m turning through this crap back and forth in hopes of wearing it in. Maybe after 1000 passes if my hand survives...
Size: In terms of dimensions, it is shorter than the S&B from the front of the turret bubble (and it is a bubble) to the ocular lens: 7.75” vs 8.25”. This is important to know for scope mounting comfort when direct mounting to Sako TRG or Tikka using Spuhr mounts. It weighs only 32oz but looks like it weighs 64oz.
Overall I’m happy with my purchase. I’ll try to get over the second turn indicator shit feel. I’ll definitely buy another.
Glass: This scope is basically a S&B 5-25 that doesn’t tunnel. It is very sharp. It is sharper than my S&B but not by much- trying to resolve 1mm cross on orange dot. The eye box is the same. The viewable area looks the same, does the same thing when moving the elevation/windage controls- top/sides/bottom of the eye box get fuzzy as the erector approaches the end of its travel. It does get slightly darker when you bottom out the erector, but the resolution is not affected. In fact I found it easier to resolve fine detail when the erector was bottomed out. The detail almost washed out with the erector centered, too bright for the conditions. The eye box is no where near as nice as Kahles or Zeiss in terms of presentation. What I mean by that is how the image is displayed. For example, Zeiss and Kahles look like you’re watching a movie inside a theater. S&B/Minox looks like you’re watching the same movie on a 13” TV. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. I was able to induce CA but it is so slight it is almost impossible to see. The least CA of any scope out there. The parallax knob is on the stiff side of turn feel. More stiff than my S&B. Not as stiff as my Kahles. Much smoother than Kahles which feels like trying to turn over a motor with no oil. Also, no parallax at one magnification means no parallax at all magnifications. The mag ring is stiff but smooth and has that nub on there to help you turn it. No reticle jump! Reticle is well centered, only .05 mil off judging by the hash marks. Locking ocular is easy to set and lock.
Turrets: My S&B has the USMC 12 mil turrets. The Minox clicks feel similar to my S&B USMC, more widely spaced than the S&B 14mil turret. The clicks feel good, but not as good as NF ATACR, Henny, Kahles. The second turn indicator feels like you’re running into a wall inside a padded room. It is a pos feature. It is not a feature. It sucks. I’m turning through this crap back and forth in hopes of wearing it in. Maybe after 1000 passes if my hand survives...
Size: In terms of dimensions, it is shorter than the S&B from the front of the turret bubble (and it is a bubble) to the ocular lens: 7.75” vs 8.25”. This is important to know for scope mounting comfort when direct mounting to Sako TRG or Tikka using Spuhr mounts. It weighs only 32oz but looks like it weighs 64oz.
Overall I’m happy with my purchase. I’ll try to get over the second turn indicator shit feel. I’ll definitely buy another.
The Minox I own blows Kahles out of the water. It is also was also clearer than the 4 S&B we had at the range one day. The only scopes that were better were TT and Premier. To say it is basically a S&B is a disservice. Please shoot it for a year / season and then get back to us. One day at the range is not a review.
We are all getting tired of hearing about the second rev indicator. And the next person that mentions "tunneling" should get banned.
It is a really good scope, but no scopes are perfect. I have a second one coming soon. If anyone out there is unhappy with theirs; I will buy it from them.
We are all getting tired of hearing about the second rev indicator. And the next person that mentions "tunneling" should get banned.
It is a really good scope, but no scopes are perfect. I have a second one coming soon. If anyone out there is unhappy with theirs; I will buy it from them.
Blows the Kahles out of the water how? The Gen3? In resolution and contrast, no. In CA control, yes. In eyebox, no. Turret feel, no. Parallax control, yes. Size, no. How does it blow the Kahles away, please tell us. (I’m not a Kahles fan at all, but your bombastic statements are worthless)
It blows the Kahles glass out of the water. Kahles has great features and reticles but not glass. And my bombastic statements come from actually shooting matches and spending lots of time behind scopes, not going to the range one afternoon and claiming to be an expert after a couple hour behind the scope.
Time for some popcorn...
That said, after handling the AMG, Razor GEN2, ATACR, and k624i simulatenously; I liked the k624i the most. I preferred the turrets, illumination knob, and SKMR3 to anything else.
But, I went with the AMG due to the really bad CA in the K624i. Also having service in Austria for anything that cannot be handled in RI made me apprehensive.
That said, after handling the AMG, Razor GEN2, ATACR, and k624i simulatenously; I liked the k624i the most. I preferred the turrets, illumination knob, and SKMR3 to anything else.
But, I went with the AMG due to the really bad CA in the K624i. Also having service in Austria for anything that cannot be handled in RI made me apprehensive.
Your experience is similar to mine, I had the SKMR and loved everything about the Kahles but the heavy CA bugged me, that being said I remember the scope having incredible resolution. The AMG handled CA much better than the Kahles and offered resolution that appeared to be on par and I found the EBR-7 to be more useful in the field than it appeared in print so I felt it was a good compromise and I saved a few ounces in the process. Then I got the Minox and it one upped the AMG in glass, but I still love the AMG for what it is - a 100% sourced and made in the USA (I guess they are having a German company etch their reticle now, but glass is still from the USA) scope that can compete with top tier scopes from Germany. Of course Tangent Theta is also a North American manufacturer but they can't make the same 100% claim as Vortex. If TT offered a .2 mil hash reticle like the others it would be much more appealing to me but for now I'm content with the poor mans TT (the Minox ZP5). I'll be watching SHOT closely, curious if anything appealing for me shows up.
D
Dr59860
Guest
How do the elevation and windage turrets feel on the Minox? My elevation turret is more tactile and audible than my windage.
Oh boy, you just opened a can of worms. Some say Minox has the worst turret feel ever, others say it is better than most and still others... well you get the point. Turret "feel" is very much based on preference. I wrote a response to Minox turrets last year where I recommended a "Snipers Hide Turret Test", take two rifles with two different scopes (one being the Minox in your case) and have a buddy with a stopwatch time you. Have your buddy write down 10 different sets of numbers that would represent targets at different distances, these would equate to mil values so an example might be - 4.2, 8.9, 0.3, 6.7, 9.4, 12.8, 5.0, 18.3, 7.5 and 2.9. You would want a completely different set of numbers for the other scope but along the lines of the same range so maybe within the same mil value but different 1/10 mil values. You get setup in prone with the rifle in the ready position and have your buddy start the stop watch when he or she calls out the first value, you then dial your scope to that value, breathe, pull the trigger (dry fire of course) and cycle the bolt, once your buddy sees you cycle the bolt they then call out the next number and you do this for all ten values and after you've cycled the bolt for the last time they stop the stop watch. Now you get setup with the next rifle and scope (preferably a rifle that is same type as the previous - in other words don't do this with one short action and one long action because that could affect your time) and run the same test again. Now do different numbers and the tests in reverse (so the first rifle you test second and the second you start with) and run the tests again. Do this four times to hopefully reduce variables and now divide each rifles time by 4 and this will give you the average. Does one scope stand out significantly above the other? This could indicate a better scope for you and your ability to dial accurately under stress (you are being timed after all). As an additional test, swap places with your buddy and you now time him through the same course and you might find that he/she does better with the "other" scope.
For me personally, this would be a better evaluation of the turrets than "how do they feel" because the ability to quickly and accurately dial elevation is more important than "this turret feels better than that turret", that may certainly be the case (that one feels better to you) but what good does a better feeling turret do you if it causes you to sometimes have a slower response time. My guess is this, between the upper level scopes I would imagine there is not that much of a difference in the ability to accurately dial elevation. For some the MTC turrets on some Schmidt & Bender scopes may cause over travel when going past the heavier mil clicks and then having to dial back, for others it may be turrets with greater than 10 mil adjustment per rev cause over-travel because the clicks are more tightly packed together and so forth, but our bodies have an amazing ability to compensate for mechanical deficiencies and with training and muscle memory we can get past many shortcomings.
Here's something else I have noticed, at almost 50 years old my eyes aren't like they used to be. Eye doc still says I have fantastic 20/15 vision but my ability to focus on near objects has deteriorated over the past 3 years and requires me to wear reading glasses when I read, this has also impaired my ability to lift my head off the cheek rest and be able to read the numbers on the turret, I literally have to pull my head away before I can read those numbers. If I were to shoot competitively I would probably benefit from the Revic PMR 4.5-28x56 which has the mil values built into the HUD while looking through the scope, in fact, this would allow me to dial without having to pull my head away from my cheek weld at all, I can see a definite advantage in competitive situations with that solution.
I have an early production (SN52512x) MP5.
The clicks were mushy and the resistance through the 2nd turn indicator was high.
I was told that Minox is evolving the turret spec based on feedback.
I bought another (SN52532x) and the turrets are much better. Still not super strong detents but 90% less mush and nearly zero drag through the 2nd turn.
I sent 52512x to Germany (via the former importer in Hew Hampshire) and 3 months later it returned with the best turrets I've felt to date. The elevation turret has no play, when enough torque is applied, it snaps to the nest detent, no mush. All of the drag is detent, no o-ring. The windage turret has the same detent force plus some o-ring drag. I think it's perfect, other than the drag through the 2nd turn, which is higher than I'd like, but not worth another 3 month wait. I have nowhere to shoot where I'm anywhere near the 2nd turn anyway.
I've been debating whether to send 52532x to the motherland to have the turrets rebuilt to what I hope would be the same spec.
As it stands the turret feel is pretty good so I'll probably give it another season.
One nice detail that doesn't get much ink is how easy it is to dial back to zero with the large opposing triangular marks on the turret and the knob at zero. Like Bill I have difficulty reading the turrets with a cheek weld but returning to zero is no issue at all.
The clicks were mushy and the resistance through the 2nd turn indicator was high.
I was told that Minox is evolving the turret spec based on feedback.
I bought another (SN52532x) and the turrets are much better. Still not super strong detents but 90% less mush and nearly zero drag through the 2nd turn.
I sent 52512x to Germany (via the former importer in Hew Hampshire) and 3 months later it returned with the best turrets I've felt to date. The elevation turret has no play, when enough torque is applied, it snaps to the nest detent, no mush. All of the drag is detent, no o-ring. The windage turret has the same detent force plus some o-ring drag. I think it's perfect, other than the drag through the 2nd turn, which is higher than I'd like, but not worth another 3 month wait. I have nowhere to shoot where I'm anywhere near the 2nd turn anyway.
I've been debating whether to send 52532x to the motherland to have the turrets rebuilt to what I hope would be the same spec.
As it stands the turret feel is pretty good so I'll probably give it another season.
One nice detail that doesn't get much ink is how easy it is to dial back to zero with the large opposing triangular marks on the turret and the knob at zero. Like Bill I have difficulty reading the turrets with a cheek weld but returning to zero is no issue at all.
I do agree that the turret feel doesn't really equate to performance at the range. People complain that the Steiner Military turrets are mushy, yet I was able to dial very quickly during matches. You're right, it's not something to obsess over. Even if it's hard not to after you just spend $3000.
All my Steiner Military scopes has mushier turrets than my current scopes but I never got lost using them. And that second rev indicator is awesome.
Agreed with most of you that while heavy clicks are nice, I prefer a turret that has less play so I know exactly where I’m set. That’s what makes the TT special. It does both effortlessly.
Agreed with most of you that while heavy clicks are nice, I prefer a turret that has less play so I know exactly where I’m set. That’s what makes the TT special. It does both effortlessly.
K624i is a nice scope. I've owned pm2, atacr, 624 G3; I changed from 624 back to pm2 after 6 months of use, 624 does have a noticeable CA even mine is gen3; ordered a TT 525 after read this article and other comments on TT. It's good to see TT get a good reputation after 4 years on the market and some TT have been used in recent PRS matches.
Great report. Very objective. I would love to see Steiner Military and Hensoldt in the comparison
I own most of the scopes mentioned. Somehow my Vortex always sinks to the bottom of any internal review.
I own most of the scopes mentioned. Somehow my Vortex always sinks to the bottom of any internal review.
Couple years back I did a comparison of half of these scopes and the Steiner was in that comparison. You can no longer find it as it was with the old Scout site.
The Steiner is an excellent scope and in good company with all the scopes in this review. I remember it being pretty close to the other scopes optically. It had more CA, a little less pop but outside of that, it's phenomenal. Probably my favorite 2nd rev indicator.
Turrets were the mushiest of the bunch, but I never got lost with them and always knew where I was so it wasn't that important.
I'm hoping the new Steiner M7Xi will improve upon CA and turrets, man I'd love to get my hands on the 4-28x56 and see how it compares to my Minox ZP5, that is, if it's not priced at the unobtainium level
Outstanding post an excellent writing! you had just enough disclaimers without being fearful of misleading! Still it was easy to follow the honest comparison. Based on your work I would feel comfortable in making a choice between these scopes....
I'm hoping the new Steiner M7Xi will improve upon CA and turrets, man I'd love to get my hands on the 4-28x56 and see how it compares to my Minox ZP5, that is, if it's not priced at the unobtainiu
OP - like you I have NF ATACR 7-35 and 5-25 three Razor 2 and a couple of SB PMii as my “top tier” scopes. Today - and based on your review - I’ve done a deal to add the Minox to that category. Really looking forward to it and thanks for taking the time to review.
Part of me wonders if i made the right choice going with the K525i instead of the existing Minox. Time will tell.
Me thinks the K525i will be amazing, it's shorter, has top mount parallax and SKMR/3 reticle, can't go wrong, the only way I see you not liking this scope Will is if it has horrible CA, which I'm doubting that will be the case with their redesigned optical formula. If you hate it, maybe I'll trade you my Minox for it
Similar threads
