Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Minox ZA 5 2-10x40 Review Part 1

Ok, yesterday I posted that I had just received one of the new Minox scopes. I posted a few thoughts then, but wanted to post a few more, with some better pictures, so on to the review...

I've handled and owned a few pair of Minox binos over the years and have always liked the value and quality that they provide. The first really high-end binos I fell in love with were the 8.5x43 HGs. The view through them was excellent and they were about half the price of the equivalent Leica or Swaro. When Doug first announced that Minox was going to release a new riflescope, I was anxious to get my hands on one. So off to the local Randall's Grocery Store I went to pick up a money order to send to New York. Well, after (impatiently) waiting for a couple of months, it finally arrived.

Here it is in all its glory. (Sorry for the crappy cell phone picture.)



Included in the box is a lens cloth, warranty literature, a book of instructions, a small allen wrench, and a ScopeCoat. All pretty standard items with your better ($400+) scopes. Here's a copy of my original thoughts after looking through it and playing with the adjustments yesterday.



Later after a question about the windage and elevation adjustments, I added...



So, after work yesterday, I got it home and got to play with it a little more. First thing I did was drop it on my postal scale to verify the one at work. Well, somebody is off because it weighed in at 13.9oz at home. Not a significant difference, but a difference none the less.

Here's a better picture of the scope sitting in a set of Low Talley LWs. The barrel contour on this rifle is a No. 3 Douglas if anybody wants a reference, and this rifle has about 1.25" of shank out past the recoil lug.



Unfortunately I don't have a Zeiss Conquest any longer to compare it to, but I'm familiar enough with them that I can make some comments from memory. I do however have one of the latest Leupolds, a VX-3 3.5-10x40. I'd guess the Conquest and VX-3 are squarely where Minox was aiming when they pulled the trigger on the ZA series riflescopes.

Here's a few pictures of the two scopes side by side.







There are a couple of things that are readily obvious when you have the two scopes side by side like this. First the Leupold is a longer scope. Slightly over a 1/4" longer to be exact (the Minox is 12.25" and the VX-3 is 12.56"). Secondly, despite both being 40mm scopes, the Minox has a larger front bell at 1.945" compared to the Leupold's 1.830" bell. The mounting area is very similar. Between the front bell and adjustments, the Minox has approximately 2.20" of space, the Leupold 2.27". Between the adjustments and the ocular, the Minox has 2.26" to the Leupolds 2.36". Not a lot of difference, and keep in mind these measurements are approximate and the best I could do.

Now, there are two other measurements that I see as very critical. One of them has been my biggest knock on the 3-9x40 Conquest, and that's the ocular measurement. Well, you Low and Extra Low ring guys will be happy to know that I measured them to be identical! Both measured 1.555". Bolt interference problems be gone! The second measurement I'm referring to is weight. I love the view through the high-end Euro glass and Leupold's VX-7, but they're often heavy! I pulled the Aluminas off the Leupold and it checked in at 12.4oz, so 1.5oz lighter than the 13.9oz Minox. Not much difference, but if you're one of those guys that believes every ounce counts, there it is.

I did spend a few minutes looking through the two scopes comparing optical qualities, and if you love the new VX-3 or Zeiss Conquest glass, I think you'll be very pleased with the Minox. Its glass is easily on par with its main competitors, if not besting both. I think that's going to be a personal thing though with one person liking one scope and the next a different one. Zombie hunters should have no problem when hunting in the deep, dark forest past legal hunting hours.

Eye box or eye relief is another feature that I feel is very important in a hunting riflescope, and the guys at Minox did their homework there. Eye relief is LONG and constant! No new brow scars with this scope. The eye box is equally good on both ends of the mag range. If you like the way the 3.5-10x40 VX-3 or 3-9x40 Conquest behaves, you won't be disappointed with the Minox. They hit a homerun here.

Like I mentioned above, I think the feel of the elevation and windage adjustments are going to be the one complaint some people have. If you like that "ting" sound you get when you spin the knobs on some of the high-end scopes, you might not like the feel of the Minox. It's got a slightly more "plasticy" feel for lack of a better term. The adjustments are very positive however and you definitely can feel and hear each click.

The next step is to get this thing to the range and test it out. I put it on a Mickey Coleman-built 223 that is stupid accurate. I'll test the adjustments and see how it does and report back at that time. For now though, I think Minox has hit a homerun. They definitely fired a shot across the bow of Leupold and Zeiss with their first entry into the riflescope market.

Stay tuned for more to come...

Very nice review. I have the Minox ZA5 3-15x42. I'm a tad upset that the scope will not fit in Low Talley Lightweights on a Pre-64 M70 .264 Win Mag. The front objective just ever so slightly touches the barrel.

I did a review of the 3-15x52. I hope you don't mind if I put my review under your thread. I compared a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 to the Minox ZA5 3-15x42.

Thanks for the great review. Is there any chance you could get some pictures of what is under the adjustment caps? I haven't been able to find any info on the turrets on these things...

Feel free to add it to this thread. The more info here the better in my opinion.



Ask and ye shall receive...

Got mine in yesterday....didnt get much time with it, but was quite pleased.

Where is your review whiskey?

Awesome. I like the looks of those. Thanks for your efforts here.

No problem. If you have any other questions, or things you want to see pictures of, let me know. I've already got one request for a picture of the reticle and I plan to get that around lunchtime today. Conveniently enough, I have a picture from a while back of a Conquest reticle to compare it to, as well as a few others.

-Dan

Ok, here are the reticle pictures, but let me make this disclaimer. I do not currently have a Conquest or Viper in my possession. The pictures are some I took a couple of years ago when I had a 3-9x40 Viper in my mitts that Doug had sent around for everybody to check out. Also note that I tried my best to get all the reticles to the same approximate scale. That may not be the case however and may affect the look of the reticles to some extent. Anyway, here we go...

Minox ZA 5 2-10x40 Plex Reticle


Vortex Viper 3-9x40 Plex Reticle


Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 Z-Plex Reticle


Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40 Duplex Reticle

Thanks, Dan. Good info - appreciate the review!

Look forward to your range session - especially tracking/repeatabilty/holding zero and all that good stuff.

DJ

Well, I just finished comparing both of the scopes, the MINOX and the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14. Where to begin... At first I thought I liked the #20 Z-plex reticle better, but I could not see the finer crosshairs of the Conquest at 6:40 PM and I could easily see the crosshairs of the MINOX. The Conquest's field of view was pretty much the same to the MINOX. Optically the Conquest seemed "whiter". The lighter colors really popped out and the darker colors were harder to tell where they started and where they stopped. The MINOX had, IMO, a better contrast with the light colors and dark colors. The lighter colors were not as "white" and the darker colors were easier to distinguish. I scoped the neighbors dog walking the treeline with both scopes and I could easily see the dog with both scopes. The #20 reticle didn't perform as well due to the crosshairs disappearing into the background. The MINOX crosshairs were easily seen.

Overall, the Zeiss appreared brighter or the lighter colors were more vibrant at low light. The MINOX has better contrast of colors at low light. Bright colors were not nearly as vibrant. The #20 reticle crosshairs disappeared whereas the MINOX crosshairs were still visible 15 minutes beyond the Conquest. The MINOX crosshairs are not as fine as the Conquest. When both were on the highest power, everything seemed equal optically except I couldn't see the finer crosshairs of the Conquest.

The true test will be to see how well it holds zero at the range. If this scope holds zero as well as the Conquest, Zeiss is going to have their hands full at this price point.

Be sure to evaluate the parallax for the Minox at several distances, say one, two and three hundred yards. I'm a little suspicious of a scope in this magnification range not having that adjustment.

Great job with the reticle pictures, that answered two questions I had. It tells me how the Minox plex compares to the Conquest Z Plex and it also showed me a Vipers plex which I always heard was way too thin but according to the picture it looks better than the Leupold and the Minox. I also agree about the Z plex inner crosshairs being too thin. That is the Z plex only weak spot, I wich they were a tad heavier in the middle. The Viper reticle looks identical to the Nikon Monarch UCC 2-7x32 plex I have in proportions. The Minox looks very interesting I just dont care for the tall turrets but oh well.

Clark,

Does the minox turret lift up to set it to a zero hash mark like a Conquest, or have a rotating ring like a Leupold stock turret, or what?

Thanks!

If you look closely in this picture, you can see the hole for the set screw that holds the turret in place (right by the number 5). There are three of those holes around the turret. To adjust it, you use the included allen wrench to loosen the set screws, reset your zero, and then tighten them back up.

Is the turret plastic?

Nope. Aluminum I'd guess.

Thanks. I like that. The stock Leupold turret is nifty but lacks the means to zero it to a reference mark like that... which makes it much less useful (IMHO).

WinM70, anytime I had that 'barely touch' issue, I shimmed w/a piece of aluminum from a coke can, or a business card, but to match the lower ring. Works like a charm w/no downside for me everytime.

You guys have aluminum business cards in Louisiana?! Wierd.

Congrats on your Saints btw! That was cool...

It's very humid.