K525 SUCKS !!!!! SB PM2 5-25 vs K525 VS TT525P

Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#51
That 1000 yard Tangent Theta image is truly impressive.

I will state that my K525 experience is not the same as @Msaon308 , but mimics more of @DellaDog 's experience. The image does deteriorate at anything above 18x. I typically run mine in the 12-18 mag range and the image is excellent.

I could not use a K624 because of the CA, believe me I looked through several and tried, which is ultimately why I went with an AMG instead. I sold the AMG to fund the K525 and do not regret it thus far. Yes, CA is still present but it is not nearly as bad as the K624 and is better than the k318. I would put the CA on par with what I saw in my T5Xi.

As far as image clarity/contrast/resolution I would put it as superior to the AMG. I have a simple test I run, there are power lines at ~700 yards. On those telephone poles are tags, about the size of an index card, with numbers, barcodes and labeling. Depending on how much I can make out on those pole tags determines to me the image quality. I was able to decern more with the K525 than the AMG.
Like I sad in the post the k525‘CA is better than k624. But keep in mind K525 is 3k price range. In that price range there are ZP5,NF 5-25,NF 7-35,SB PM2 and every one of them will have better performance(good fov and less CA)than k525 even in max mag setting. And like you said it will run under 18x I truly believe you. I just can’t convince our members to spend their hard work money to buy a “5-18” scope when their had much better choices.
 
Last edited:

Covertnoob5

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 12, 2017
1,513
212
63
#52
Like I sad in the post the k525‘CA is better than k624. But keep in mind K525 is 3k price range. In that price range there are ZP5,NF 5-25,NF 7-35,SB PM2 and every one of them will have better performance(good fov and less CA)than k525 even in max mag setting. And like you said it will run under 18x I truly believe you. I just can’t convince our members to spend their hard work money to buy a “5-18” scope when their hard much better choices.
Thanks for the tests. Would definitely love to also see a Zp5 and 7-35 in it. I don’t have a 1 mile range, but do have 1k and I have a 318i that I'm going to compare to my AMG and s&b 3-27. When I get my Premier back I will also compare it to that.
Honestly the AMG just keeps shining especially for the price right now. Great value. The 7-35 was great I’ve had several, just waiting for the h59 reticle to come in.
Would be interested in possibly sending you a scope or 2 to do the same test and compare at 1k and 1mile.
 
Likes: Dirty8404

Dirty8404

Sergeant of the Hide
Apr 17, 2018
133
62
28
#53
The image does deteriorate at anything above 18x...

...CA is still present but it is not nearly as bad as the K624 and is better than the k318. I would put the CA on par with what I saw in my T5Xi...

...As far as image clarity/contrast/resolution I would put it as superior to the AMG.
What the fuck? CA like a $1400 scope? I apologize for not adding information to the conversation but at that price point... that’s fucking bullshit on Kahles’ part in today’s optics environment.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,217
448
83
27
Mississippi
#54
What the fuck? CA like a $1400 scope? I apologize for not adding information to the conversation but at that price point... that’s fucking bullshit on Kahles’ part in today’s optics environment.
I don’t disagree. But he might have not noticed much in his T5X. There are cheaper scopes devoid of CA. Take the pst Gen II. Given that it’s better than the k318i which is kind of in the realm of the mark 5HD (Good) it should be very good just not devoid of CA
 
Apr 24, 2017
972
163
43
Hoover, Alabama
#56
Like I sad in the post the k525‘CA is better than k624. But keep in mind K525 is 3k price range. In that price range there are ZP5,NF 5-25,NF 7-35,SB PM2 and every one of them will have better performance(good fov and less CA)than k525 even in max mag setting. And like you said it will run under 18x I truly believe you. I just can’t convince our members to spend their hard work money to buy a “5-18” scope when their had much better choices.
If you shop around and do your due diligence the K525 can be had for considerably less than 3k. Depending on reticle preference there may or may not be a better choice. The only one I am really tempted to try at this point is the ZP5 with MR4. I have not looked through the NF735 but was not shocked at the NF525. PM2 again comes down to turrets and reticle selection. I will not argue the FOV point as that is a legitiment complaint, Kahles has always chased FOV and they went the opposite direction in the K525, hard to understand why.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,217
448
83
27
Mississippi
#59
@5RWill and @blbennett1288, thanks for expanding on that, great info.
Np it really tends to vary scope to scope and eye to eye. It's also usually exacerbated in pictures. Take this photo i took of the mark 5, if you zoom in there is CA on the lower left edge of the circle. Which i could not for the life of me see the day i took it.

Which is why i'm not putting 100% stock into Mason's review of the lineup entirely. Not to say i'm doubting him, he's got no reason to lie. I just have a hard time believing every K525 is lacking that severely compared to it's competition. It just doesn't remotely represent my experience with the K318i and certainly doesn't echo what other K525 owners are saying. There are some on here like myself that were pretty critical of the k624i that have changed tone with the new lineup which echoes my thoughts on the K318i. I think yes his particular scope may look that bad but that picture if to be taken at face value looks worse than most $1000 optics. If i find the same though this weekend with my K525i i'll sing like a canary, until then though i'm suspect that something is wrong with the optic. I do agree the FOV being reduced is a pain, though i rarely every shoot at 25x it's still going to be smaller throughout the mag range than it's competitors.
IMG_2504.JPG
 

Iggles2017

New Hide Member
Jan 31, 2018
45
13
8
Oklahoma
#60
Np it really tends to vary scope to scope and eye to eye. It's also usually exacerbated in pictures. Take this photo i took of the mark 5, if you zoom in there is CA on the lower left edge of the circle. Which i could not for the life of me see the day i took it.

Which is why i'm not putting 100% stock into Mason's review of the lineup entirely. Not to say i'm doubting him, he's got no reason to lie. I just have a hard time believing every K525 is lacking that severely compared to it's competition. It just doesn't remotely represent my experience with the K318i and certainly doesn't echo what other K525 owners are saying. There are some on here like myself that were pretty critical of the k624i that have changed tone with the new lineup which echoes my thoughts on the K318i. I think yes his particular scope may look that bad but that picture if to be taken at face value looks worse than most $1000 optics. If i find the same though this weekend with my K525i i'll sing like a canary, until then though i'm suspect that something is wrong with the optic. I do agree the FOV being reduced is a pain, though i rarely every shoot at 25x it's still going to be smaller throughout the mag range than it's competitors.
View attachment 6954336
For the record, I have a k318, and find it to be a fantastic optic exhibiting no ca to my eyes. I also have a 5-25 and 3-20 ultra short by Schmidt and Bender, and believe the k318 gives up little to anything to the Schmidts, Especially considering it's compact size. The fov is noticeably smaller, but not an issue in my opinion.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,996
774
113
Black Forest, CO
#62
gotcha. yeah i havent been impressed with any kahles optic period. i have tested and tried everything from the k312i through all gens of the k624i and now the 318/525 and they are all nothing impressive to me at all. C/A is signifigant on every one of them and they have all seemed to have the muddiness to them you show in your pic.
I have the K318i and I also had a K624i, I was not impressed with the K624i glass in regard to CA, but it performed admirably in other areas. The K318i is an incredible optic for an ultra short, they kept CA to a minimum (at least as good as the S&B Ultra Short 3-20) and the resolution is superb.

OP - as others have mentioned, with such poor performance of your K525i it might be worth sending back to Kahles to be looked at.

To the many posters of this thread making comments about the IQ based on the OP's pictures... you are making a mistake. You cannot judge the IQ of any scope by looking at through the scope images on the internet because you are judging an optical system based on the performance of another optical system (DSLR and lens) and the ability of the system/person to capture the "perfect" image. The OP says the Kahles IQ is less than his TT and Schmidt, that is what you should go off of, not the images. It is deceptive to post through the scope images on the internet and say, "look at how much better this scope is vs..." you should go by what the person "see's" and not what their camera shows. That being said, I don't think there's much doubt the TT is one of the best performing scopes made and Schmidt is not far behind, reports have already been coming in that the Kahles K525i struggles a bit at top end so the OP's results are not entirely surprising.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,996
774
113
Black Forest, CO
#63
For the record, I have a k318, and find it to be a fantastic optic exhibiting no ca to my eyes. I also have a 5-25 and 3-20 ultra short by Schmidt and Bender, and believe the k318 gives up little to anything to the Schmidts, Especially considering it's compact size. The fov is noticeably smaller, but not an issue in my opinion.
I wholeheartedly agree with what Iggles has said here, this is my experience as well. Let's keep in mind the OP is talking about the K525i and not the K318i, do not judge all scopes from a manufacturer based on another model.
 
Likes: 5RWill

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,996
774
113
Black Forest, CO
#66
Correct, the T5Xi was really good at controlling CA for its price point. There was some but you really had to look for it. The majority of the CA I see in the K525 is around the edges and not in the center.
That's very interesting because I had a T5Xi 5-25 and 3-15 and both represented some of the worst CA I've ever experienced in a good scope, granted, my versions were very early in their manufacture and maybe Steiner has since cleaned them up???
 
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#67
Np it really tends to vary scope to scope and eye to eye. It's also usually exacerbated in pictures. Take this photo i took of the mark 5, if you zoom in there is CA on the lower left edge of the circle. Which i could not for the life of me see the day i took it.

Which is why i'm not putting 100% stock into Mason's review of the lineup entirely. Not to say i'm doubting him, he's got no reason to lie. I just have a hard time believing every K525 is lacking that severely compared to it's competition. It just doesn't remotely represent my experience with the K318i and certainly doesn't echo what other K525 owners are saying. There are some on here like myself that were pretty critical of the k624i that have changed tone with the new lineup which echoes my thoughts on the K318i. I think yes his particular scope may look that bad but that picture if to be taken at face value looks worse than most $1000 optics. If i find the same though this weekend with my K525i i'll sing like a canary, until then though i'm suspect that something is wrong with the optic. I do agree the FOV being reduced is a pain, though i rarely every shoot at 25x it's still going to be smaller throughout the mag range than it's competitors.
View attachment 6954336
If you look my photo on K535 at 1k the top edge part looks so bad is because there are white 1000yd BR targets behind it. But in 1 mil there are no white target or background on the top edge so it looks much better. I am also a photographing enthusiast and the common method we use to test a leans's CA is using a white background at some distances and look for the edge. Because white color will reflect every color of light in the sunlight. So I highly recommend you bringing a big white target or cardboard to do the test this weekend.
 
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#69
I really hope this is a typo. Every T5Xi I’ve looked through has had some of the worst CA I’ve ever seen in any scope. The Military models on the other hand, are quite impressive. The Tactical line, not so much.
I have to back up you. Right the T line is just junk the M line is much much better.
 
Apr 24, 2017
972
163
43
Hoover, Alabama
#70
That's very interesting because I had a T5Xi 5-25 and 3-15 and both represented some of the worst CA I've ever experienced in a good scope, granted, my versions were very early in their manufacture and maybe Steiner has since cleaned them up???
I have had 2, one was marked Steiner Germany and was from the first batch, I got a replacement that was much better and is what I am referring too as I suspect that is mostly what is out there.

I really hope this is a typo. Every T5Xi I’ve looked through has had some of the worst CA I’ve ever seen in any scope. The Military models on the other hand, are quite impressive. The Tactical line, not so much.
It is not a typo. What I am mainly referring to is that the K624 no matter where you look center, edges, middle the CA is prevalent. In the T5Xi I had the CA only ever occurred around the edges, which is on par with what my experience has been with the K525. Never looked through the M line so I can't comment there.
 
Last edited:
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#71
If you shop around and do your due diligence the K525 can be had for considerably less than 3k. Depending on reticle preference there may or may not be a better choice. The only one I am really tempted to try at this point is the ZP5 with MR4. I have not looked through the NF735 but was not shocked at the NF525. PM2 again comes down to turrets and reticle selection. I will not argue the FOV point as that is a legitiment complaint, Kahles has always chased FOV and they went the opposite direction in the K525, hard to understand why.
of course I know I get K525 for 2800 new, but compared to my 2099 SB PM2 P4f the k525 is just a joke LOL
 
Apr 24, 2017
972
163
43
Hoover, Alabama
#72
of course I know I get K525 for 2800 new, but compared to my 2099 SB PM2 P4f the k525 is just a joke LOL
I take it you are a Chevy or Dodge man :eek:. I think we are arguing different points. I am not arguing that the K525 has better glass. I am arguing that the feature set, namely turrets and reticle, fit my needs more than the offerings of the competition. Yes, the CA is unacceptable at that price point, but I am willing to deal with that for what the scope offers. The FOV was because of design and that I am disappointed in that too, just have to run it at a lower magnification.

I am comparing how the CA is exhibited in the K525 and T5Xi, around the edges. Not how prevalent it is in that area. The reason I said this is because the K624 it was everywhere. center, middle, edges. That is not the case with the k525 and it is certainly not as bad.

Before I purchased a K525, I lined up at Razor GENII, my AMG, K624, and a K318. I was so impressed with the reduction Kahles was able to achieve in the K318 compared to the K624 that I ordered a k525.

Michael is about to hit and where I shoot is prob looking a lot like Noah's arch. If the weather is manageable tomorrow I will try and get out and take crappy iphone pics to display what I am seeing at 700 and 1000 yards.
 
Last edited:
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#73
I take it you are a Chevy or Dodge man :eek:. I think we are arguing different points. I am not arguing that the K525 has better glass. I am arguing that the feature set, namely turrets and reticle, fit my needs more than the offerings of the competition. Yes, the CA is unacceptable at that price point, but I am willing to deal with that for what the scope offers. The FOV was because of design and that I am disappointed in that too, just have to run it at a lower magnification.

I am comparing how the CA is exhibited in the K525 and T5Xi, around the edges. Not how prevalent it is in that area. The reason I said this is because the K624 it was everywhere. center, middle, edges. That is not the case with the k525 and it is certainly not as bad.

Before I purchased a K525, I lined up at Razor GENII, my AMG, K624, and a K318. I was so impressed with the reduction Kahles was able to achieve in the K318 compared to the K624 that I ordered a k525.

Michael is about to hit and where I shoot is prob looking a lot like Noah's arch. If the weather is manageable tomorrow I will try and get out and take crappy iphone pics to display what I am seeing at 700 and 1000 yards.
Sounds good. I highly recommend you bringing a big white target or cardboard to do the test. Waiting on your reviews and I am meeting my friends with NF 7-35 and NF Beast this weekend at 1000 Range.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,996
774
113
Black Forest, CO
#74
I have had 2, one was marked Steiner Germany and was from the first batch, I got a replacement that was much better and is what I am referring too as I suspect that is mostly what is out there.
That is good to know. Oddly enough I had an early Burris XTR II 4-20 that had some optical issues, some others mentioned the same; however, recent versions had been getting rave reviews so I bit the bullet and bought another and lo and behold the new one worked excellent. It may be that Burris/Steiner fixes issues with early versions without really saying anything, I wish they would call it a v2 or Gen II or whatever, but Burris/Steiner has been hesitant in the past to admit there are any issues (speaking of the T5Xi tracking fiasco early on, they first denied it then admitted to it and then fixed the issue), I wish they would have addressed it quicker but the fact they did at all is a good sign for their willingness to admit something is wrong and make it right for the customer in the end.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,996
774
113
Black Forest, CO
#75
Sounds good. I highly recommend you bringing a big white target or cardboard to do the test. Waiting on your reviews and I am meeting my friends with NF 7-35 and NF Beast this weekend at 1000 Range.
A white on black or vice versa target will be good for testing CA, but IQ is a different story, especially at distance when dealing with mirage and other atmospherics.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,490
761
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
#76
That is good to know. Oddly enough I had an early Burris XTR II 4-20 that had some optical issues, some others mentioned the same; however, recent versions had been getting rave reviews so I bit the bullet and bought another and lo and behold the new one worked excellent. It may be that Burris/Steiner fixes issues with early versions without really saying anything, I wish they would call it a v2 or Gen II or whatever, but Burris/Steiner has been hesitant in the past to admit there are any issues (speaking of the T5Xi tracking fiasco early on, they first denied it then admitted to it and then fixed the issue), I wish they would have addressed it quicker but the fact they did at all is a good sign for their willingness to admit something is wrong and make it right for the customer in the end.
XTR II 4-20x50 of recent manufacture is markedly better than the first one I saw. There is still some weird distortion, but it is less pronounced than int he recent 3-15x50 and 5-25x50 I looked at briefly.

Still, Burris needs to add a couple of tree reticles, bump the glass another notch and call it XTR III. They will sell a ton of these if they do.

The mechanical chassis of the XTR II is very robust and, frankly, the 2-10x42 XTR II is one of my favourite scopes on the market right now, reticle aside.

ILya
 
Likes: wjm308

Dixie Rifleman

Always Learning
Apr 24, 2017
80
36
18
GA
#77
I realize there are limitations to a photograph of the image seen through a scope but I want to thank the OP for posting the pictures. As a comparison it gives me a much better idea of what to look for when judging image quality. I think my Razor has nice glass but it helps to have a better idea of what to look for when trying to critically judge a scope. FWIW, CA doesn't seem to bother me nearly as much as it does some of the others who have commented.
 
Likes: Msaon308

just browsing

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 18, 2017
418
96
28
Louisville, KY
#78
CA can be a touchy subject here on the Hide. Some don’t mind it at all, others can’t stand it. I will say that once you start noticing it, it’s hard to ignore.

Most take issue with it when optics that are supposedly ‘Tier 1’ (ie Kahles) exhibit issues such as controlling CA that are normally present in lower level optics.

While CA is not going to make you miss a target, I think most would agree that spending in excess of $2500 should get you some glass that controls it reasonably well.
 
Feb 23, 2017
50
15
8
#79
Think the problem with Kahles is that they concentrate too much on getting a brighter sight picture, which hurts other optical qualities. Amongst those are CA.

The fov is easy to explain tho, it's a compact design with less space for lenses, so has it to sacrifice something for the size.

I've used mine on a PRS match, milling targets(was less than 0.5% of at 1200+ yards) and so on, Zero issues so far. Didn't even notice the CA, but it is there but gets a lot less noticable when the target is close to the center of sight picture.

Would have been nice to have a TT, looks like a awesome scope. But it costs around 5500$ over here, so can almost get 2 minox zp5 with some rebate from a dealer for the same price...
 
Feb 7, 2013
2,236
583
113
The West
#81
If that’s truely how the Kahels looks, send it back.

I’ve had lots of high $ scopes and do feel confident in my own abilities to determine if the sight picture is good. I can look out my back yard at 300 or 3000 yards + and done so with many scopes.

My 525i resolves just fine. It will never be the glass in this scope that makes me misjudge, not see or miss a target. Yes, I say there is some fall off at the outside edges, but I have to look for it.

Why I choose this scope was for the turrets, reticle that I am fast on and the Parallax placement. Yes, the glass is good.
 
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#82
If that’s truely how the Kahels looks, send it back.

I’ve had lots of high $ scopes and do feel confident in my own abilities to determine if the sight picture is good. I can look out my back yard at 300 or 3000 yards + and done so with many scopes.

My 525i resolves just fine. It will never be the glass in this scope that makes me misjudge, not see or miss a target. Yes, I say there is some fall off at the outside edges, but I have to look for it.

Why I choose this scope was for the turrets, reticle that I am fast on and the Parallax placement. Yes, the glass is good.
Well, I can use a 300 bucks Athlon hit 10-inch plate on 1k easy. "It will never be the glass in this scope that makes me misjudge, not see or miss a target". Nowadays, you can't go wrong with any big brand optics. So what is a point to buy these expensive scopes do we really need it? A Honda will get you to form A to B just like a Ferrari. For me, the K525 is just like I paid a Ferrari price tag get a Porsche....... it is not that bad but it is just not meet my stander for a 3k scope.
 
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#83
Think the problem with Kahles is that they concentrate too much on getting a brighter sight picture, which hurts other optical qualities. Amongst those are CA.

The fov is easy to explain tho, it's a compact design with less space for lenses, so has it to sacrifice something for the size.

I've used mine on a PRS match, milling targets(was less than 0.5% of at 1200+ yards) and so on, Zero issues so far. Didn't even notice the CA, but it is there but gets a lot less noticable when the target is close to the center of sight picture.

Would have been nice to have a TT, looks like a awesome scope. But it costs around 5500$ over here, so can almost get 2 minox zp5 with some rebate from a dealer for the same price...
I got my tt used for 3500;)
 
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#84
Thanks for posting the pictures. I agree with your assertion. I would have liked to have seen a picture through a Nightforce ATACR F1 at the same time. Would have been interesting. I switched from a K624i to an ATACR F1 7-35 and I find the Nightforce to be far supperior.
I just bought an NF 7-35 yesterday will take it to the 1000y range with one of my friends who had an NF beast. NF will up against the TT, SB, Beast. Hope I will keep the NF so I do not need to buy another TT LOL.
 

Covertnoob5

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 12, 2017
1,513
212
63
#85
I just bought an NF 7-35 yesterday will take it to the 1000y range with one of my friends who had an NF beast. NF will up against the TT, SB, Beast. Hope I will keep the NF so I do not need to buy another TT LOL.
I eagerly await your results.
 

jonthomps

Gunny Sergeant
Feb 9, 2009
1,777
36
48
Kansas City
#88
Well I get mine tomorrow and I hope I didn’t waste my money.
I have a 525i w/ SKMR3. It's a great scope with alot to like. Ambi parallax, great turrets, awesome light gathering capabilities, great reticle, and a relatively compact package for a 5-25x56 scope. I haven't noticed any CA. Evaluate the scope in it's entirety, not based solely on one attribute. If you go in thinking, "It might have CA, it's gonna have CA, where's the CA..." then yeah, you'll probably find CA. I'm confident you'll like this scope as much as I like mine. Attached is a pic of my 525i on my 6.5 SAUM as well as a 1.25" 3-shot group on a 100% IPSC @ 635y (plus one in the neck for good measure!). If having CA helps me shoot like this I'll have another heaping spoonful.
 

Attachments

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,996
774
113
Black Forest, CO
#89
.... it is not that bad but it is just not meet my stander for a 3k scope.
I think you need to qualify that statement, because aren't you really saying it doesn't meet "your" standard for a $3k scope. Some would say the K525i is an improvement on the K624i and yet the K624i had it's own drawbacks, yet it remains one of the most popular scopes in competition. Just because a scope doesn't meet your standard doesn't mean it's not a good scope. Starting threads by saying "Brand X Sucks" is a quick way to get a lot of looks, but what purpose does it serve in the long run? I understand your frustration because you purchased an expensive scope hoping you were going to get something more, but after all is said and done, it would be worth having your scope looked at by Kahles - I would be curious to hear what they have to say.
 

Bender

Something witty here
Feb 12, 2014
2,795
2,543
113
Cheyenne WY.
#90
I would say the TT looks the worst. Look at the distortion near the edge, the signs at 1000 yards are distorted and do not look Square. Where as they look perfect in the S&B. heck, they even look more square in the Kahles. I would be pissed off if I spent that much money and had a fisheye lens with that much distortion out of the TT. To me, the Schmidt and Bender kicks ass. Even with the basic mill dot reticle.
 

Bender

Something witty here
Feb 12, 2014
2,795
2,543
113
Cheyenne WY.
#91
I mean seriously, I am colorblind, so maybe I don’t notice the CA like you guys do. But the first thing that jumped out at me at that picture through the TT was the fisheye distortion. I would take the slight haze, or a little of that of the CA over that distortion
 

cro789

Sergeant
Dec 20, 2008
602
41
28
tn
#92
jonthomps,
Sir I want to give you a shout out for a great big thanks. You have restored my faith in my purchase. I know there will be people out there that will always hate a scope and will try to convince people that the scopes they pick are better. I did as much research on the scope as I could. Thanks goes out to Mike at CS Tactical in helping me with my choice. Some times all we can do is to go the the net for information because not all of us have the money to go out a buy ever scope and test them. I have had US Optics, Vortex, Nightforce, S&B and others. Now I will have the Kahles and it took me awhile to save the money to get it.

Thanks to all hide members that want to help other hide members.
 
Feb 7, 2013
2,236
583
113
The West
#93
I mean seriously, I am colorblind, so maybe I don’t notice the CA like you guys do. But the first thing that jumped out at me at that picture through the TT was the fisheye distortion. I would take the slight haze, or a little of that of the CA over that distortion
I have had US Optics, Vortex, Nightforce, S&B and others. Now I will have the Kahles and it took me awhile to save the money to get it.
^ Same here for my past scopes.. I went with the Kahles 525 because I wanted features that help me stay fast on the targets (like the non-locking but protected windage, the under turret parallax and .2mil wind hashes with floating dot. I have moved back away from certain reticles because the damn 6mm impacts can be hidden behind some of the reticle information.

I will repeat this. I can walk outside any time of day and look <100 to well over 3000k at while houses thin powerlines/polls trees etc.. then miles past that in the hills. The image looks on par with my other glass, maybe even better than some. The image is clean, clear and pleasant to "my" eye. I am not saying it looks like a TT as that I do not have, but NOTHING in the Kahles looks like the image shown, if it is focused.

I am sure we can always find better glass, but at this level that is NOT my driver.
 
Oct 7, 2017
180
22
18
Indiana
#94
I think you need to qualify that statement, because aren't you really saying it doesn't meet "your" standard for a $3k scope. Some would say the K525i is an improvement on the K624i and yet the K624i had it's own drawbacks, yet it remains one of the most popular scopes in competition. Just because a scope doesn't meet your standard doesn't mean it's not a good scope. Starting threads by saying "Brand X Sucks" is a quick way to get a lot of looks, but what purpose does it serve in the long run? I understand your frustration because you purchased an expensive scope hoping you were going to get something more, but after all is said and done, it would be worth having your scope looked at by Kahles - I would be curious to hear what they have to say.
0D561A8B-EFD0-474F-8A82-D728DDA3DA45.jpeg
706333B3-31D4-4745-B721-1DCC75BDB8A8.jpeg
6BDF58E1-1900-4CC2-8091-36E06281E4D3.jpeg First,I’ve been focusing on the skill side of precision shooting but talking about gears like rifles and scopes, it seems I am not saving much on my gear spending. $3000 is really not “expensive” under my standard. But any rational people would expect something better as they spend a little more, does that make sense? Second,the k624 and k525 they do sucks. Especially the k624 because I bought 2 of them I don’t think is bad luck same thing this time for k525 and I do not think anything will change send it back. Third, are you trying to play “political ccorrect” bs on me? What you means “what purpose”? Do I need a purpose to post soem bad experiences with a scope I paid myself ? Or you just want me to say good things about k525 even it is really sucks ? Last, I don’t care what thay ues on the matches “what pro use “ for me is just scope Ads spending ranking LOL.
 
Aug 7, 2014
922
139
43
Gillette, WY
#96
NOTHING in the Kahles looks like the image shown, if it is focused.
You nailed it IMO. I have the 525i also, colors pop far more than the 624i, comparable to my NF F1's.
I call these type of tests "Twatnostics", a post to purposely trash a product others are willing to shell out coin for, even if I hadn't purchased the 525, this post would have not swayed the decision in any manner.
Even if the color pops more in this model, once I find a target and draw a bead on it, it becomes moot whether it is the brightest white, or a cream color, for that aspect is now irrelevant. Like this whole post.
 
Top Bottom