Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Kahles 3-9x42TDS vs. IOR 2.5-10x42MP-8
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Brown Dog" data-source="post: 16906" data-attributes="member: 1622"><p>I have a Swarovski 3-12 x 50 with the TDS reticle; I assume it's the same as the Kahles reticle (I believe Swarovski own Kahles). If your intention is long range targets, forget a TDS reticle. It's a great concept, but (on my Swarovski at least) the cross hair lines are so thick that they subtend around 1 MOA (ie they completely obscure a 1 inch dot at 100 yards, 2 inch at 200 and so on...) not really an issue at the shorter ranges but at 600, you won't be able to see around 6 inches of the target! </p><p>That said, the furthest I've ever shot a deer is a hair over 200 yards - and it was fine in that application. </p><p>Plinking with it at inanimate targets at longer ranges (you won't be able to take on anything much smaller than a 10 inch paper plate at 400 yards!) reveals a different scope limitation; the inability to focus the scope means that from 300 and out things are a little blurry!</p><p>This has lead me to buy a mil-dot scope with side parallax for my (yet to arrive!) longer range deer rifle. </p><p></p><p> -I should point out that my Swarovski's reticle maintains constant subtension regardless of power setting (I always get muddled as to whether that means its in the 1st or 2nd focal plane!). If the Kahles reticle is not in the 'constant subtension' optical plane (and I suspect -but don't know- that if it is produced for the US market it won't be) it will only subtend correctly (ie you will only be able to use the reticles range marks) at one particular power setting...I don't believe that this is seen as a big issue on the US side of the pond, but to my 'dumb Brit' mind that would render the scope unacceptable.</p><p> My 2 'pence'(!)</p><p>I hope this is of some help.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brown Dog, post: 16906, member: 1622"] I have a Swarovski 3-12 x 50 with the TDS reticle; I assume it's the same as the Kahles reticle (I believe Swarovski own Kahles). If your intention is long range targets, forget a TDS reticle. It's a great concept, but (on my Swarovski at least) the cross hair lines are so thick that they subtend around 1 MOA (ie they completely obscure a 1 inch dot at 100 yards, 2 inch at 200 and so on...) not really an issue at the shorter ranges but at 600, you won't be able to see around 6 inches of the target! That said, the furthest I've ever shot a deer is a hair over 200 yards - and it was fine in that application. Plinking with it at inanimate targets at longer ranges (you won't be able to take on anything much smaller than a 10 inch paper plate at 400 yards!) reveals a different scope limitation; the inability to focus the scope means that from 300 and out things are a little blurry! This has lead me to buy a mil-dot scope with side parallax for my (yet to arrive!) longer range deer rifle. -I should point out that my Swarovski's reticle maintains constant subtension regardless of power setting (I always get muddled as to whether that means its in the 1st or 2nd focal plane!). If the Kahles reticle is not in the 'constant subtension' optical plane (and I suspect -but don't know- that if it is produced for the US market it won't be) it will only subtend correctly (ie you will only be able to use the reticles range marks) at one particular power setting...I don't believe that this is seen as a big issue on the US side of the pond, but to my 'dumb Brit' mind that would render the scope unacceptable. My 2 'pence'(!) I hope this is of some help. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Kahles 3-9x42TDS vs. IOR 2.5-10x42MP-8
Top