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.

And they do like them big wallets down south...

What about low light which has the edge and why the 2X10X40 or The 3X15X42

No clue. I only have a 2-10 currently.

just got mine mounted on my TC encore. Looks good. Hope to get it out next weekend and compare to my Kahles KX. Will report findings then.

The only problem I have with that scope is all the huge billboard advertising logos on it. What the heck were they thinking with that?

what does it matter? logo, no logo?

one quick q...yes this will show my ignorance.

what exactly is parralax? i have read of this and since the 3-15X42 doesnt have an adjustment, what could the ramifications be? Optically, it is very impressive!

Parallax is when the target image and reticle image do not lie in the same plane. A given scope is parallax free for one distance to the target, and generally the higher the magnification the more apparent the parallax. Scopes designed with ultimate precision in mind which are often of higher magnification allow for their parallax free distance to be adjusted.

When there is significant parallax present you can make the target and reticle appear to move relative to one another by moving your head/eye behind the scope.

I have a very accurate 223 for which the 3-15x42 would be a nice fit, but the lack of a parallax adjustment immediately took it out of consideration.

At what yardage does this make an impact, if the optics are set parallax free at 100 meters? 300, 500 yards?

It affects things closer too.

What effect parallax has at a given distance depends on how much is present and how consistent the shooter is. If the shooter is exactly centered behind the reticle for every shot then there's no problem. But achieving that is going to be troublesome.

So proper 'cheek weld' is a def must.

Whether your cheek is "welded" to the stock or if you shoot head upright it's being consistent shot to shot that's important always, particularly so if you're dealing with noticeable parallax.

Ok, initial range trip is complete, and the results are good.

I mounted the new Minox on my Coleman-built 223. This rifle is a legit .5 MOA rifle. For those that may be interested, I also stopped by the local Academy to see if I could find the correct Butler Creek flip-ups. A number 11 works on the ocular, and a 30 fits the objective. Here it is set up at the range...



After boresighting, I fired a shot, made an adjustment, and with my second shot I was sighted in. I fired a couple more shots to verify my zero and then moved to the target I designed to test the adjustments. (If anybody wants one of these, shoot me a PM with your email address and I can send you the pdf version.)

I have to admit, I screwed up with my adjustments the first time around (I was counting clicks and think I got off somewhere), plus I forgot to take an initial shot at the X. The shots that have X's through them were my first attempt at running the box.

I scrapped that plan and figured I'd do it right the second time around. I rezeroed on another target and then re-set the turrets so that instead of counting clicks, I could just twist to the correct number (there's an idea huh? ). Shot No. 1 was at the X which verified my zero. Then I twisted down 4 MOA and left 4 MOA and got shot 2. Twisted 8 MOA left for shot 3, 8 MOA up for shot 4, 8 MOA right for shot 5, then left 4 MOA and down 4 MOA for shot 6. As you can see, it worked like a charm. The target is a 1" grid with 1" diameter circles.

That is awesome tracking. Did you take another shot at zero after going around the horn? It looks like one hole.

I'll do the same with my 3-15x42 when it stops snowing and I can get to the range.

The shot numbered 1 was my initial shot at the X. No. 6 was the shot when I returned to zero.

I was pulling your leg. That is some awesome tracking going back to zero after all of those adjustments.

The weather this weekend is going to be perfect for outdoor activities. You have me fired up about shooting my new to me rig.

How many MOA per revolution of the turret?

Sorry if this was answered somewhere and I missed it.

If I'm seeing my pictures correctly on Part 2 of my review, it looks like 15 MOA per turn.

up

Is there a Part 2 to the review? I am interested in this very scope.

I think Part 2 was just further down in the post where I tested the tracking. I don't remember ever making another post.

Fair enough. How has this scope held up for you? Any further feedback perhaps?

The optics and eye relief are great. I think the duplex reticle is just right. The adjustments are mushy but seem consistent, and compared to my Leupolds the field of view is very narrow. I bought one for a slug gun for the bright optics but moved it to a varmint rifle. I just didn�t like the narrow view and the turret covers are huge and stick out far enough to interfere with ejection on my Savage 220F, granted this slug gun is known for wimpy ejection.

In retrospect, I would just go with a Leupold 3x9 with a M1 or CDS elevation turret.