Mid Priced Scopes

I've spent a little time behind the Minox now and compared it to a few of my other scopes,
2.5-10x40 prostaff 5
3-12x42 prostaff 7
3-12x42 diamondback HP
5-25x56 atacr

The Bads- the BDC reticle in my zx5i 2-10x50 is very thin, luckily it has the illumination that helps you pick up on it. The turrets are odd in the fact they do not end in a whole number, instead, it has 12.5moa per rev, odd... The zoom ring is a little stiff. The glass, while very clear, doesn't seem to have the color pop that others did.

The Goods- Again, the glass is very clear and low light performance is very good. The clicks in the turrets are tactile and tracked correctly. I like the location of the illumination as well as when it is idle for so long, if it the scope is laid over, or if the scope is stood vertically, the illumination is turn off, very neat feature. The eyebox is very good, I have no problem getting behind the scope and being very comfortable.

I was extremely surprised by the Prostaff 7. The glass has very good color/contrast and gave up very little to the minox as far as the optics go. If paying full price ($350 for the PS7 and $600 for the zx5i) I'd pick up another Prostaff 7.
 
I was recently comparing several of these scopes. I currently have several of the Minox ZX5, ZX5 HD and one ZA3 on several rifles. I also have an older Leica and a Swarovski Habicht as well as some older Weaver Steel tubed El Paso Scopes.
The scopes I compared where the Prostaff's (both the 5 and the 7), the ZX5i's and the Whiskey 5 scopes. I ended up with the Whiskey 5. 3-15x44.
The Minox have all been bright and clear with good color rendition and good clarity at low light. They're actually better than the 'old' Swarovski in that regard. The ZX5i I looked at was right on par with the others I own, I just had no use for the illumination. I agree with the other poster that the reticles are on the thin side and may be a bit difficult to find in low light without the illumination.
The Prostaff models were just a slight bit less bright to my eyes.
The Whiskey 5 scope is bright and sharp with good color rendition. The reticle is easy to see in most any light. The adjustments are easily turned and you can feel each click. I have one currently mounted on a 308 and was playing with it at a friend's range out to 350 yards. The adjustments were spot on for the load and conditions. I caught one on sale prior to the end of the year on Amazon for under $500 and took the plunge.
I agree with toddc's comments on the Trijicon. For what they cost, I'd step up to Whiskey 5 at full price or a Zeiss Conquest HD for about the same $$$.
I'll keep wringing out the Whiskey 5 out to some longer ranges, hopefully this weekend and report on it.
Of the scopes listed, I'd rank them:
Whiskey 5
Minox ZX5
Prostaff 7
Prostaff 5
Trijicon
 
I have a Monarch 3 on one rifle and like it a lot but I recently bought 2 Vortex scopes that are a whole lot better. Vortex Viper HS-T 6x24x50 is super sweet on a Savage 10T 6.5 Creedmoor and the Viper HS 4x16x44 I put on a 7 mag. Picked out 2 does at dark 30 @ 50 yards or so that I could not see with the naked eye. Was pretty impressed. Both are 30mm tubes.
 
florida boy said:
I have a Monarch 3 on one rifle and like it a lot but I recently bought 2 Vortex scopes that are a whole lot better. Vortex Viper HS-T 6x24x50 is super sweet on a Savage 10T 6.5 Creedmoor and the Viper HS 4x16x44 I put on a 7 mag. Picked out 2 does at dark 30 @ 50 yards or so that I could not see with the naked eye. Was pretty impressed. Both are 30mm tubes.
Click to expand...

That monarch will do the same. I've spotted deer w/ my nikon omega that I couldn't see with naked eye.
 
Never understood why people hate nikons. My only complaint is the majority of their scopes are 1 inch tubes. A nice Nikon prostaff 5 or 7 or a monarch with their spot on app will get you shooting pretty consistently up to 500 yards depending on caliber.

I just bought to Athlon Argos BTRs. They have a ton of features for right around $400. I am very impressed with them for my initial look. I need to get them mounted and do a tracking test though before I promote them too much.

There are some good YouTube videos of guys shooting .338 Lapuas at 1000+ yards with them with no issues.
 
I 2nd the NO 50 MM objective lens. Having to use high rings to get the bell to clear the barrel makes for no cheek weld on the stock and bad shooting posture. A 50 mm objective is wider than the width of most rifle stock fore ends. This can lead to many problems of bending the tube on the scope with any rough usage. Even mishandling when in a soft case loading in a vehicle can spell disaster.

Comparing scopes in low light is a good thing. I once several years ago had 3 rifles with 2X7 scopes on them, A Weaver, A Redfield and A Leupold. in bright light the Redfield was better. At Dusk the Leupold was brighter longer.
Good Luck in your choice.
 
LoneTraveler said:
I 2nd the NO 50 MM objective lens. Having to use high rings to get the bell to clear the barrel makes for no cheek weld on the stock and bad shooting posture. A 50 mm objective is wider than the width of most rifle stock fore ends. This can lead to many problems of bending the tube on the scope with any rough usage. Even mishandling when in a soft case loading in a vehicle can spell disaster.

Comparing scopes in low light is a good thing. I once several years ago had 3 rifles with 2X7 scopes on them, A Weaver, A Redfield and A Leupold. in bright light the Redfield was better. At Dusk the Leupold was brighter longer.
Good Luck in your choice.
Click to expand...

High rings for 50mm?? Maybe on a flat top AR. I run mediums witn 20moa rail and 60mm bell over a MTU barrel.
 
As to special rings for a 50mm objective...you need your cheek weld to be lined up with the scope no matter what ring/scope/stock you choose. Everyone's face is different and fits each stock differently. It should go without saying that your face needs to fit your rifle, no matter what setup you choose. They make adjustable stocks, stock packs, foam, etc. for this reason. Not every suit off the rack will fit you, neither will every gun.
I find Nikon glass to have a slight edge over Vortex(in the same price range) but I have had 3 that won't dial correctly, you have to tap the tube after dialing to get it to move. Not a fan of ballistic reticles in second focal plane scopes either.
Having become a bit of an optics snob all of my Nikon and Vortex has been sold or used on .22's as at some point you just get tired of messing with it and upgrade.
Check out the Weaver Super Slams at Natchez, look into and Burris as well
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]https://www.natchezss.com/weaver-3-...ope-side-focus-illu-dual-x-reticle-matte.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]https://www.natchezss.com/weaver-2-10x50-super-slam-riflescope-dual-x-reticle-matte.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]This thread should be in the "optics" section, you would probably get more input.[/FONT]
 
Nikon !

Best bang for the buck....

Also check out the Nikon Buckmaster models 3-9x40 $100.00 and the 4-12x40 $129.00

My only complaint with this cheaper model is it has plastic turret caps !!!!

Come one Nikon you cant save that much over metal caps!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

E
Mid range hunting?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Educ8r
E
J
Mule Deer in Nevada, 221-223 Mid Season
Replies
4
Views
3K
JohnnieB
J
E
Under 150 yard scopes
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
deerhunt01
D
K
Scope Problem
Replies
3
Views
907
memtb
memtb
I
help with scope
Replies
10
Views
2K
kc
K

Recent Posts

Top