|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
So........consensus on their 1.5-8x??? Sorry, but I do not have one to comment on... But Doug is probably willing to let you look at one... and I bet it would work just fine. The one thing I have found in Minox scopes is absolutely reliable specs. Some are so far from reality it is an absolute joke (Burris comes to mind) and most tend to fudge a bit.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
To add to comments on the 1.5-8x...
At 5x the Minox 1.5-8 and 2-10 FOV graphs cross, with the 1.5-8 having more FOV at lower powers. If you generally run your variable scopes well below the highest powers this would probably be less than a non-issue.
At higher powers the 2-10 has significantly more FOV. As I stated earlier the FOV is among the absolute least of my concerns and it would not matter to me, within reason.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 487
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 487 |
Given the same price point, I'm sure the Minox is better than a Leupold 2-7x32 VX-2.......equal to their VX-3 line perhaps?
Last edited by John_in_MS; 08/07/13.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
I like Leupolds just fine... but the 2-7x Leupolds, especially the Compact, are the worst examples of compromise ever made in the optics World, IMO&E.
The Schott glass in the Minox is better without a doubt.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,318 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,318 Likes: 1 |
my example of one a 3-9 on a Kimber montana 308 has worked fine for 3 years or more (bought it when they first came out). I wish the reticle was heavier and the adjustable eyepiece was harder to turn, but it holds zero and has good optics. Its lighter than the 3-9 Conquest I have. On one end of the spectrum we look thru the bottom of a coke bottle with a Bushnell 4-20 something or another and on the other you can brag about your S&B, for 98% of hunting something in the middle made by a reputable manufacturer will do just fine. However getting hung up in the minutia is our favorite past time here on the fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,233
Campfire Regular
|
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,233 |
If you do not realize FOV and "Tunnel Vision" are the same creature then please explain what you meant by the term.
To me, the tunnel vision I'm referring to is the field image in the scope not filling up the entire ocular lens. At the needed eye relief to maximize the image there was still a significant "ring" around the image and the image just generally seemed "far away". I could still clearly see the image and could get FOV guesstimates from the image, however, the image was not filling up the ocular. If that isn't tunnel vision then please let me know what to call it because I noticed the same thing on the Viper 2-7. The Zeiss, Nikon and Bushnell scopes I have do not display this annoyance whatsoever. Those provide nice, clear field image that fully fills up the ocular lens. Not an optics expert by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,154 Likes: 3
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,154 Likes: 3 |
I would like to know as well, I moved a ZA-5 2-10 from a Ruger #1 in 300 H&H over to a lightweight M-70 Winchester in 300 RUM, so far so good but, would like to hear positive reports on long term reliability.
Most may recommend you spend that 300 bucks on a 3-9 Conquest.
Gunner A lightweight .300 RUM will give it a good "shake test" for sure. If it survives that, it's probably OK. DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
If you do not realize FOV and "Tunnel Vision" are the same creature then please explain what you meant by the term.
To me, the tunnel vision I'm referring to is the field image in the scope not filling up the entire ocular lens. At the needed eye relief to maximize the image there was still a significant "ring" around the image and the image just generally seemed "far away". I could still clearly see the image and could get FOV guesstimates from the image, however, the image was not filling up the ocular. If that isn't tunnel vision then please let me know what to call it because I noticed the same thing on the Viper 2-7. The Zeiss, Nikon and Bushnell scopes I have do not display this annoyance whatsoever. Those provide nice, clear field image that fully fills up the ocular lens. Not an optics expert by any means. What you are seeing is a function of mounting the scope improperly. Your eye should be very close to the eye relief measurement. Some scopes have far more mounting latitude than others and "eye box" is commonly used to refer to the effect. The more critical the eye box the more difficult it can be to mount a scope. If you are seeing the problem with multiple scopes with reasonable eye relief the problem may be in the stock length, either too short or too long. Or it could be the way you mount the rifle. The eye relief on the Vortex 2-7x32 is actually quite forgiving.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
I would like to know as well, I moved a ZA-5 2-10 from a Ruger #1 in 300 H&H over to a lightweight M-70 Winchester in 300 RUM, so far so good but, would like to hear positive reports on long term reliability.
Most may recommend you spend that 300 bucks on a 3-9 Conquest.
Gunner A lightweight .300 RUM will give it a good "shake test" for sure. If it survives that, it's probably OK. DF I shot a hundred rounds or so of 375AI under a ZA5 2-10 and a lot more of other rounds and it is still ticking just fine...
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,154 Likes: 3
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,154 Likes: 3 |
I would like to know as well, I moved a ZA-5 2-10 from a Ruger #1 in 300 H&H over to a lightweight M-70 Winchester in 300 RUM, so far so good but, would like to hear positive reports on long term reliability.
Most may recommend you spend that 300 bucks on a 3-9 Conquest.
Gunner A lightweight .300 RUM will give it a good "shake test" for sure. If it survives that, it's probably OK. DF I shot a hundred rounds or so of 375AI under a ZA5 2-10 and a lot more of other rounds and it is still ticking just fine...  If you and Gunner can't destroy one, it's probably OK. DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,766 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,766 Likes: 1 |
If you do not realize FOV and "Tunnel Vision" are the same creature then please explain what you meant by the term.
To me, the tunnel vision I'm referring to is the field image in the scope not filling up the entire ocular lens. At the needed eye relief to maximize the image there was still a significant "ring" around the image and the image just generally seemed "far away". I could still clearly see the image and could get FOV guesstimates from the image, however, the image was not filling up the ocular. If that isn't tunnel vision then please let me know what to call it because I noticed the same thing on the Viper 2-7. The Zeiss, Nikon and Bushnell scopes I have do not display this annoyance whatsoever. Those provide nice, clear field image that fully fills up the ocular lens. Not an optics expert by any means. What you are seeing is a function of mounting the scope improperly. Your eye should be very close to the eye relief measurement. Some scopes have far more mounting latitude than others and "eye box" is commonly used to refer to the effect. The more critical the eye box the more difficult it can be to mount a scope. If you are seeing the problem with multiple scopes with reasonable eye relief the problem may be in the stock length, either too short or too long. Or it could be the way you mount the rifle. The eye relief on the Vortex 2-7x32 is actually quite forgiving. I've always considered what Fifth is talking about as "Tunnel Vision". I've looked at it separate from FOV. Some scopes have a thick black ring around the image even when mounted properly at the correct distance. The image is full, sharp, and fine...but the heavy black ring remains around the outside. Leupolds seem to have very little of this. A scope with (what I call) "Tunnel Vision" irritates me to no end.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1 |
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,900 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,900 Likes: 1 |
If you do not realize FOV and "Tunnel Vision" are the same creature then please explain what you meant by the term.
To me, the tunnel vision I'm referring to is the field image in the scope not filling up the entire ocular lens. At the needed eye relief to maximize the image there was still a significant "ring" around the image and the image just generally seemed "far away". I could still clearly see the image and could get FOV guesstimates from the image, however, the image was not filling up the ocular. If that isn't tunnel vision then please let me know what to call it because I noticed the same thing on the Viper 2-7. The Zeiss, Nikon and Bushnell scopes I have do not display this annoyance whatsoever. Those provide nice, clear field image that fully fills up the ocular lens. Not an optics expert by any means. What you are seeing is a function of mounting the scope improperly. Your eye should be very close to the eye relief measurement. Some scopes have far more mounting latitude than others and "eye box" is commonly used to refer to the effect. The more critical the eye box the more difficult it can be to mount a scope. If you are seeing the problem with multiple scopes with reasonable eye relief the problem may be in the stock length, either too short or too long. Or it could be the way you mount the rifle. The eye relief on the Vortex 2-7x32 is actually quite forgiving. I've always considered what Fifth is talking about as "Tunnel Vision". I've looked at it separate from FOV. Some scopes have a thick black ring around the image even when mounted properly at the correct distance. The image is full, sharp, and fine...but the heavy black ring remains around the outside. Leupolds seem to have very little of this. A scope with (what I call) "Tunnel Vision" irritates me to no end. Yep. I despise the "looking down a tube" feel I get from some scopes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
Well, I am sitting here looking through several scopes that have been mentioned as having "tunnel vision" and all of them provide a clear image at the correct eye relief, without a heavy black ring.
The ZA 5 2-10 is mounted on a SA 700 in Talley lightweights and I am not seeing the dreaded black ring when mounting the rifle quickly or when mounting with eyes closed before looking through it.
I recognize few scopes have the generous eye box of a Leupold... But there is nothing wrong with these scopes when mounted in the right place.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 487
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 487 |
I concur what Sitka refers to as improper mounting. I've personally never seen this particular phenomenon with even cheap, bargain basement scopes from the likes of Tasco, Simmons, and Bushnell. That is, not until the trendy fascination with longer eye relief started a few years back. One of the downsides of longer eye relief, its that it usually comes at the sacrifice of a narrower range (front to back) of optimal eye relief and the corresponding narrower FOV.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
![[Linked Image]](http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a34/peckpartyof3/optics/scope1_zpsb69ae8a6.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a34/peckpartyof3/optics/scope2_zps82273af8.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a34/peckpartyof3/optics/scope3_zps210e75e0.jpg) Three poorly composed and exposed images taken handheld through three scopes. One is the brand new Vortex Viper HS-T 4-16x44, another is the Leupold 3.5-10, and the other is the Minox ZA 5 2-10... Which one is not acceptable?
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,638 |
Assuming you are either jerking chain or baiting...
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1 |
No, I agree, I have had several scopes that are akin to looking through cardboard paper towel roll.
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,271 Likes: 25
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,271 Likes: 25 |
Your wife needs to clean the windows. 
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,975
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,975 |
My Minox ZA 5 2-10 developed a loose ocular, on my LW 300 WSM. Called Minox and they are shipping me a new tested scope. With a pre paid label to ship the old scope back. Great service.
My other identical scope is holding up fine on a 6.5 X 284. Like the optics and scope hope it was a one time occurrence.
kk alaska
Alaska 7 months of winter then 5 months of tourists
|
|
|
|
|
302 members (1lesfox, 160user, 21, 12344mag, 10ring1, 1lessdog, 31 invisible),
1,794
guests, and
1,120
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,633
Posts18,493,066
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://s8.photobucket.com/user/peckpartyof3/media/optics/scope1_zpsb69ae8a6.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s8.photobucket.com/user/peckpartyof3/media/optics/scope2_zps82273af8.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s8.photobucket.com/user/peckpartyof3/media/optics/scope3_zps210e75e0.jpg.html)
