Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52

[Guns&WhiteWater]

I know the Steiner has great eyebox forgiveness, but can anyone provide experience on eyebox between the Steiner and the NF NX8 2.5-20x50?

This is for a 600-ish yd 556 carbine. I'm leaning NF if eyebox is passable. I have a 4-16x42 ATACR on myLMT, which is amazing, but I'm trying to glass for a bit less ducats.

I have the T6Xi 3-18x56 and a friend has the NX8 2.5-20. I really like his scope, the eye box was much more usable than what i was expecting after reading on here about how tight it was. The reticle thickness was also suitable for the mag range. I think it might be a better scope for the hunting/cross over rifle I’m putting together compared to my T6Xi. But the Steiner has a more forgiving eye box. And it has the MSR2. It’s great for my needs but I wish it was a pound lighter and the illumination was brighter.

 

[Jerry S]

I’ll check tomorrow. I know I can use for holds at 10 possibly lower.

 

[Jerry S]

What is the lowest level of magnification that you think you can use the LDK for wind holds on?

-Stan

I know I can at 10. I’ll check to be sure tomorrow

 

[stanley_white]

I know I can at 10. I’ll check to be sure tomorrow

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[Jerry S]

6x is the lowest I can see the holds on LDK reticle

 

[stanley_white]

6x is the lowest I can see the holds on LDK reticle

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[Glassaholic]

I have the T6Xi 3-18x56 and a friend has the NX8 2.5-20. I really like his scope, the eye box was much more usable than what i was expecting after reading on here about how tight it was. The reticle thickness was also suitable for the mag range. I think it might be a better scope for the hunting/cross over rifle I’m putting together compared to my T6Xi. But the Steiner has a more forgiving eye box. And it has the MSR2. It’s great for my needs but I wish it was a pound lighter and the illumination was brighter. There’s some dark hollers here.

Eyebox can be pretty subjective and dependent on platform, a lot of shooters aren’t bothered as much as others with finicky eyebox. Saw this a lot with the March 3-24x52, some were really bothered while others had little issue.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Eyebox can be pretty subjective and dependent on platform, a lot of shooters aren’t bothered as much as others with finicky eyebox. Saw this a lot with the March 3-24x52, some were really bothered while others had little issue.

Agreed. A tighter eyebox, or a less forgiving eyebox, however you want to word it, doesn’t mean it’s not enjoyable to use. And it may or may not be noticeable if you just shoot from static positions like a bench. It’s just one metric to compare of many that round out a scope. But I would always opt for a more forgiving eyebox given the choice. Same as a wider field of view, greater depth of field, less CA, less visible eye piece ring border, etc. Some scopes just cause less eye fatigue and easy eye boxes seem to help.

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

After comparing my s&b 3-20 us, leupold mk5 5-25, razor lht 4.5 22 and atacr 4-16 I have decided to keep the atacr 4-16 and razor lht 4.5-22. I just got rid of the mk5 5-25 and am going to post the s&b 3-20 us up for sale . I think s&b 3-20 is phenomenal and it deserves all the hype it gets.
The glass, fit and finish and overall viewing experience is good. The mk5 is good as well but it's just not on the level of the s&b 3-20 . I mainly shoot gas guns, 556 and 308 and I just think the atacr 4-16 works with these platforms the best. As an overall package, turrets, magnification range and size and weight the atacr 4-16 with mil xt reticle is my top choice. The razor lht 4.5-22 for its weight savings, glass charity, reticle and overall features is a good 2nd choice for me when I want to cut down on weight. My one real personal gripe with s&b 3-20 us is that I can't get it with a tree reticle like the mil xt.

 

[Glassaholic]

After comparing my s&b 3-20 us, leupold mk5 5-25, razor lht 4.5 22 and atacr 4-16 I have decided to keep the atacr 4-16 and razor lht 4.5-22. I just got rid of the mk5 5-25 and am going to post the s&b 3-20 us up for sale . I think s&b 3-20 is phenomenal and it deserves all the hype it gets.
The glass, fit and finish and overall viewing experience is incredible. The mk5 is good as well but it's just not on the level of the s&b 3-20 . I mainly shoot gas guns, 556 and 308 and I just think the atacr 4-16 works with these platforms the best. As an overall package, turrets, magnification adjustment and size and weight the atacr 4-16 with mil xt reticle is my top choice. The razor lht 4.5-22 for its weight savings, glass charity, reticle and overall features is a good 2nd choice for me when I want to cut down on weight. My only real personal gripe with s&b 3-20 us is that I can't get it with a tree reticle like the mil xt.

If Schmidt offers their new TR2ID reticle in the US 3-20 it could re-awaken interest. Also, don’t discount the 5-20 for gas guns, I think 5-20 with offset RDS is a killer combo

 

[kskevin]

@Glassaholic … is there anything new coming out within the next 6mo in this segment.

I’m trying to find the ‘perfect fit me’ MPVO for a hunting rifle that can crossover for range fun. Scoured all the options and I’m leaning towards the ATACR (dislike rotating ocular), also like the TT315M (just not sure I wanna pay the premium and I’m just lukewarm on their reticle), minox ZP5 315 (a bit heavier than ideal). Hate to pull the trigger on something and have regrets if there is something more ideal coming out soon.

Something <30oz, 3/4x on low end 15-20x high end, great glass, smaller size (not too long, lower profile turrets, 50mm or less obj).

 

[Franko]

@Glassaholic … is there anything new coming out within the next 6mo in this segment.

I’m trying to find the ‘perfect fit me’ MPVO for a hunting rifle that can crossover for range fun. Scoured all the options and I’m leaning towards the ATACR (dislike rotating ocular), also like the TT315M (just not sure I wanna pay the premium and I’m just lukewarm on their reticle), minox ZP5 315 (a bit heavier than ideal). Hate to pull the trigger on something and have regrets if there is something more ideal coming out soon.

Something <30oz, 3/4x on low end 15-20x high end, great glass, smaller size (not too long, lower profile turrets, 50mm or less obj).

Not going to speak for @Glassaholic but Steiner has new 2-12 and 3-18 H6xi optics that you might want to check out. They are currently only available in MOA but Mil variants are supposedly in the works and look like they could be a nice fit on a hunting rifle.

 

[beetroot]

@Glassaholic … is there anything new coming out within the next 6mo in this segment.

I’m trying to find the ‘perfect fit me’ MPVO for a hunting rifle that can crossover for range fun. Scoured all the options and I’m leaning towards the ATACR (dislike rotating ocular), also like the TT315M (just not sure I wanna pay the premium and I’m just lukewarm on their reticle), minox ZP5 315 (a bit heavier than ideal). Hate to pull the trigger on something and have regrets if there is something more ideal coming out soon.

Something <30oz, 3/4x on low end 15-20x high end, great glass, smaller size (not too long, lower profile turrets, 50mm or less obj).

There will always be something just over the horizon. Your best bet is to buy something used that you won't loose much money on of you need to sell.

Steiner say the Mil HX scopes are coming summer but Burris took 3 years to release an illuminated XTR3 which was always coming soon.

I say buy a 4-16x42 ATACR if you like the reticle options.

 

[kskevin]

Not going to speak for @Glassaholic but Steiner has new 2-12 and 3-18 H6xi optics that you might want to check out. They are currently only available in MOA but Mil variants are supposedly in the works and look like they could be a nice fit on a hunting rifle.

I’m liking the specs on the H6Xi….ill do some research on reviews

 

[Glassaholic]

@Glassaholic … is there anything new coming out within the next 6mo in this segment.

I’m trying to find the ‘perfect fit me’ MPVO for a hunting rifle that can crossover for range fun. Scoured all the options and I’m leaning towards the ATACR (dislike rotating ocular), also like the TT315M (just not sure I wanna pay the premium and I’m just lukewarm on their reticle), minox ZP5 315 (a bit heavier than ideal). Hate to pull the trigger on something and have regrets if there is something more ideal coming out soon.

Something <30oz, 3/4x on low end 15-20x high end, great glass, smaller size (not too long, lower profile turrets, 50mm or less obj).

The new Leupold Mark 7HD 2-14x42, 3-21x44, 4-28x52 and 5-35x56 look interesting but I’m 3 days shy of 04/01 (meaning that is just a joke. There is no Leupold Mark 7 line that I am aware of.)
Seriously, I would not hold out for anything we do not already have available.

 

[TheBigCountry]

I’m liking the specs on the H6Xi….ill do some research on reviews

You should try the XTR3i 3-18 with SCR2

 

[5RWill]

For those of you that have used both or better yet have them side by side. NX8 vs T6Xi? I'm wanting to let my T6Xi go cause I can tell my Mars H is going to get heavy fast. Could shed almost half a pound moving to the NX8, H6Xi, or another 30mm tube based ultra-short. I've compared my T6Xi directly to a friends 4-16 ATACR and thought it was quite comparable. So by nature I think i'd be stepping down in glass quality but figured I'd ask. The latest NX8s I've been behind were impressive, especially the 4-32.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Will I didn’t have them side by side, but I was not unimpressed with my friends 2.5-20, as I was expecting to be. I really liked it. I was focusing mostly on the reticle usability at minimum power, FOV, and ease of quickly acquiring a sight picture, and mentally comparing to my 3-18 (MSR2). I wasn’t paying much attention to resolution or contrast. I remember thinking that his NX8 would be better suited for a rifle that sees more hunting and my T6Xi would be more advantageous for range use. But I would be happy with either and would enjoy a half pound weight loss with the NX8.

 

[5RWill]

Will I didn’t have them side by side, but I was not unimpressed with my friends 2.5-20, as I was expecting to be. I really liked it. I was focusing mostly on the reticle usability at minimum power, FOV, and ease of quickly acquiring a sight picture, and mentally comparing to my 3-18 (MSR2). I wasn’t paying much attention to resolution or contrast. I remember thinking that his NX8 would be better suited for a rifle that sees more hunting and my T6Xi would be more advantageous for range use. But I would be happy with either and would enjoy a half pound weight loss with the NX8.

Yeah the NX8 2.5-20 I've been behind was not bad at all not like initial impressions led me to believe and recent impressions are that it’s very good. I’m going to put the T6Xi up in the PX as soon as it gets back cause it’s new should be an easy return. Pick up a 2.5-20 just to try and somewhat keep the LM8 from being a pig

 

[Glassaholic]

Yeah the NX8 2.5-20 I've been behind was not bad at all not like initial impressions led me to believe and recent impressions are that it’s very good. I’m going to put the T6Xi up in the PX as soon as it gets back cause it’s new should be an easy return. Pick up a 2.5-20 just to try and somewhat keep the LM8 from being a pig

Just make sure the NX8 is a newer model, how much newer I do not know but I am fairly convinced the first release 2.5-20's had some serious optical issues that have since been addressed, that said, NF has a good warranty and if you think yours is "bad" then sent it in and tell them IQ sucks...

 

[5RWill]

Just make sure the NX8 is a newer model, how much newer I do not know but I am fairly convinced the first release 2.5-20's had some serious optical issues that have since been addressed, that said, NF has a good warranty and if you think yours is "bad" then sent it in and tell them IQ sucks...

Hopefully that’s not the case. Idk how to tell if it’s a newer model thoughb

 

[Glassaholic]

Hopefully that’s not the case. Idk how to tell if it’s a newer model thoughb

Ask when it was purchased. Beyond that, you'll tell almost immediately after properly adjusting the diopter, the parallax will be extremely finicky and the edge distortion at about 60% out of center will be significant.

 

[Burdy]

I finally got around to mounting up my 4x32 NX8 and I have been very impressed so far. I think the current batches are looking really good. This thing does not present like an 8x erector at all.

 

[smcgt]

Really nice comparison. Really appreciate the detail, data, and self acknowledged biases! This helps me a great deal in selecting a new optic in this range! Thanks!

 

[Earnhardt]

Great review and thread!
Thanks

 

[Crewdog135]

If anyone is looking at obj caps for the T6Xi 3-18x56, the MKM 2.50 fits like a glove! I emailed them since it isn't a listed scope to let them know. I really like their caps and ARD. Good design.

 

[5RWill]

They come with tenebraex right? I could’ve sworn mine did when i had it.

 

[Crewdog135]

Yeah, they do. I used the tenebrex on the ocular, but I like using the MKM cap and ARD on my objectives. The ARD helps cut some glare and helps protect the objective when I throw the clip-on on.

 

[Jojo417]

Have you had a chance to compare these to the Zeiss s3 4-5?

 

[Kickin45]

@Glassaholic thank you for adding the parallax and focus to your reviews. That’s quickly becoming 1 of my top requirements for a new scope. Amazing to me how glass quality is still the most sought after question. It’s important to a degree, but so many other things affect that clarity, so thanks.

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

Before I sold my original schmidt and bender 3-20 us with msr 1 reticle and dt35 mtc turrets I bought another s&b 3-20 us scope with msr 2 reticle and the dtII+ mtc turrets from another hide member and I compared the two side by side. I felt the original s&b 3-20 msr1 us glass was good but never great. No matter what I did with the diopter and parallax adj it just never blew me away like I expected alpha glass too. But when I looked through the newer s&b 3-20 with the msr2 the better viewing experience completely blew me away .It was brighter , crisper and much better over all image quality to my eyes. And as @Glassaholic and others have stated the dtII+ turrets are really really good ! I really think going forward that there is a huge opportunity to compare a same model scope vs same model scope to see how they compare. In my experience comparing the two s&b 3-20 us scopes it was an eye opening experience how differently they performed. I sold the original s&b 3-20 msr1 and kept, and am keeping the 2nd s&b 3-20 us with msr2 reticle and awesome dtII+ turrets.

 

[M.H.]

Great review, thats exactly what I was looking for.
Now I narrowed my next scope to March or S&B , it comes down to best offer I can find. Dang it, these toys are expensive

 

[Glassaholic]

Great review, thats exactly what I was looking for.
Now I narrowed my next scope to March or S&B , it comes down to best offer I can find. Dang it, these toys are expensive

Especially now that Schmidt jacked their prices again to “you’ve got to be kidding me” levels, maybe by fall they’ll realize they are loosing revenue and drop them back down to reality, this has been a common pattern with Schmidt for a while now.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Damn. Now I have to give serious consideration to the March. Would love a comparison of that and the S&B 6-36.

Old comment I know, but I have returned my 6-36 and am seriously considering going back to the 5-25 now that they are offering them with the DTII + turrets and MSR2 reticle. From memory, my old 5-25 had a more forgiving eye box, a more immersive sight picture, and smoother/easier to use parallax knob (I don’t mind the separate illumination knob). Plus I don’t need more than 25x on the top. The 6-36 was really only “usable” to me to about 30x anyway due to the eye box tightness, despite it having a slightly crisper image.

 

[M.H.]

Especially now that Schmidt jacked their prices again to “you’ve got to be kidding me” levels, maybe by fall they’ll realize they are loosing revenue and drop them back down to reality, this has been a common pattern with Schmidt for a while now.

Indeed, it is crazy expensive.
I believe that buying such an expensive glass is not for everyone even if any of us can afford it, additionally, the chances of comparing scopes head to head or even looking through them is slim to none, we buy and hope for the best.
Do you have any review that include: Glass capabilities, price range, application (Hunting, competition, weekend target shooting...ets ) and skill level?
Thanks in advance

 

[Glassaholic]

Do you have any review that include: Glass capabilities

Pretty sure all my reviews cover the glass...

, price range

While the reviews have not been specific to a price range I generally like to keep them fairly close. Before Steiner dropped prices on the T6Xi and before Schmidt raised prices on the 3-20 this was more inline. ILya has a great list of scopes based on budget over at opticsthoughts.com

, application (Hunting, competition, weekend target shooting...ets )

Not sure how I would even approach that? Application is highly dependent on the shooter, this is why we see all sorts of scopes on the same types of rifles, it depends on what the shooter wants for the most part.

and skill level?

Help me understand how skill level affects the use of a scope?

 

[M.H.]

@Glassaholic Thank you for the reply.
Throughout the years I've learned alot about this expensive hobby, not an expert by any means.
The reason I am asking is that I don't wanna drop a large sum of money and deal with disappointment. I would like some guidance from people of knowledge when pairing certain scope to its limitation and user's skill level, for i.e 350-400$ Vortex Viper is good for deer hunting, 300 yards target shooting and suitable for an entry level shooter. On the other hand someone who is backpacking mountain hunter requires upgraded light glass, that is different from an experienced long range or competitor shooter.
in my case, I am looking for a quality scope for western hunting and rest of the time shooting 600 yrds F class. I am a believer in buy once cry once. I read your review twice, I would choose S&B >March>Steiner.
I hope i am not complicating things.

 

[Glassaholic]

@Glassaholic Thank you for the reply.
Throughout the years I've learned alot about this expensive hobby, not an expert by any means.
The reason I am asking is that I don't wanna drop a large sum of money and deal with disappointment. I would like some guidance from people of knowledge when pairing certain scope to its limitation and user's skill level, for i.e 350-400$ Vortex Viper is good for deer hunting, 300 yards target shooting and suitable for an entry level shooter. On the other hand someone who is backpacking mountain hunter requires upgraded light glass, that is different from an experienced long range or competitor shooter.
in my case, I am looking for a quality scope for western hunting and rest of the time shooting 600 yrds F class. I am a believer in buy once cry once. I read your review twice, I would choose S&B >March>Steiner.
I hope i am not complicating things.

I think I understand better. The first thing I would say is you need to find a scope that can track (when you dial 8.3 mrad is it actually 8.3 or is it more like 8.2 or 8.4 or worse?), and keep on tracking, if your scopes internals have too much error throughout the elevation range then you'll start getting misses at distance that you think is the fault of something else. The good news is that most scopes in the $800 price point and above have a really good "track" record (and those that don't usually blow up pretty quick on the forums), but you should be checking your scopes ability either through a box test or tall target test. Outside of that, it really comes down to personal preference with regard to optical quality and what is acceptable whether you're a newb or a pro. I do not think skill level has as much to do with price point especially as the cheap(er) Chinese scopes have proven to be better and better over the years, and even the best of the best scopes at the upper echelon of price have had failure, so if a newb wants to buy a Tangent or ZCO or if a pro wants to put on a DNT or Athlon I don't think there's much to say about that.

I get quite a few PM's asking for which scope I think they should buy and my usual answer is: I have no idea, because I don't think there is any one scope for any particular shooter, so what I usually ask in return is what is the type of shooting you intend to do (near, far, hunting, comps, paper, steel, etc)? Are there any must haves you need in the scope, e.g. it must be FFP, it must have a tree reticle, it must be good in low light, it must be under 30oz. Things like that. From there I will ask them what their budget is and then I can start giving some general guidelines. I do not like just telling someone "get the brand X model XX" scope, but give them things to think about to help them make the decision.

The whole "buy once cry once" I think is a misnomer in that this rarely actually happens. People tend to think, "if I save up for that expensive scope I'll never want anything else" and then they buy that expensive scope and realize maybe the reticle is not quite to their liking or some other nuanced feature, or they start to think "maybe if I would have bought brand Y I might be even happier". If you can truly buy once and be happy in this game then kudos to you, you are able to do what few guys are able to do. What I hope to do in my reviews like this one here is give you an idea of how the scopes compared to one another in my testing, keep in mind this doesn't mean my results are the end all be all because there are many factors that could lean you in a different direction.

If you ask me if you should buy the Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 or the ATACR 4-16x42 for example, I would have a whole bunch of questions for you and depending on your answers I might steer you in the direction of one over the other. For example, if you told me that low light capability is more important to you than weight then I would say you've already answered your own question. When we typically see these types of threads start up I always reach for the popcorn because I know there's going to be a plethora of different answers and half the responders will tell you brand X and the other half will tell you brand Y. I try to stay away from the brand wars, it is an argument that will never be resolved and will likely be dominated by faneurisms (what happens when a fan boy has an aneurism when someone throws their brand under the buss) on both sides.

Okay, back to skills right, that was your question. If someone is just starting out in the sport I have no issue whatsoever if they want to start out with a "cheap" scope, but I would also say this, with cheap scopes usually comes some heartache so make sure you buy from a reputable manufacturer with a good track record and also a good warranty. Over the years I have avoided Chinese scopes like the plague, five years ago and prior pretty much any scope out of China would crap its pants after a few weeks to a few months of use, is that really worth the hassle, but seasons change and we are seeing a new season for Chinese optics because reputable manufacturers are putting better QC in place. I honestly think that a good Chinese optics manufacturer can likely build an outstanding scope that performs well optically and mechanically with the right QC in place. Now, arguments about whether or not your scope was built by slave labor (although I feel this is somewhat disingenuous because couldn't the same argument be made about your phone, or the motherboard in your computer or... and the list goes on, and on and on) or you don't want to support the CCP, I get that, but that's another argument entirely.

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain I've even answered your question, but you bring up some good points that cause me to think if I could do something better or differently in my reviews that could help an even broader audience.

 

[M.H.]

I think I understand better. The first thing I would say is you need to find a scope that can track (when you dial 8.3 mrad is it actually 8.3 or is it more like 8.2 or 8.4 or worse?), and keep on tracking, if your scopes internals have too much error throughout the elevation range then you'll start getting misses at distance that you think is the fault of something else. The good news is that most scopes in the $800 price point and above have a really good "track" record (and those that don't usually blow up pretty quick on the forums), but you should be checking your scopes ability either through a box test or tall target test. Outside of that, it really comes down to personal preference with regard to optical quality and what is acceptable whether you're a newb or a pro. I do not think skill level has as much to do with price point especially as the cheap(er) Chinese scopes have proven to be better and better over the years, and even the best of the best scopes at the upper echelon of price have had failure, so if a newb wants to buy a Tangent or ZCO or if a pro wants to put on a DNT or Athlon I don't think there's much to say about that.

I get quite a few PM's asking for which scope I think they should buy and my usual answer is: I have no idea, because I don't think there is any one scope for any particular shooter, so what I usually ask in return is what is the type of shooting you intend to do (near, far, hunting, comps, paper, steel, etc)? Are there any must haves you need in the scope, e.g. it must be FFP, it must have a tree reticle, it must be good in low light, it must be under 30oz. Things like that. From there I will ask them what their budget is and then I can start giving some general guidelines. I do not like just telling someone "get the brand X model XX" scope, but give them things to think about to help them make the decision.

The whole "buy once cry once" I think is a misnomer in that this rarely actually happens. People tend to think, "if I save up for that expensive scope I'll never want anything else" and then they buy that expensive scope and realize maybe the reticle is not quite to their liking or some other nuanced feature, or they start to think "maybe if I would have bought brand Y I might be even happier". If you can truly buy once and be happy in this game then kudos to you, you are able to do what few guys are able to do. What I hope to do in my reviews like this one here is give you an idea of how the scopes compared to one another in my testing, keep in mind this doesn't mean my results are the end all be all because there are many factors that could lean you in a different direction.

If you ask me if you should buy the Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 or the ATACR 4-16x42 for example, I would have a whole bunch of questions for you and depending on your answers I might steer you in the direction of one over the other. For example, if you told me that low light capability is more important to you than weight then I would say you've already answered your own question. When we typically see these types of threads start up I always reach for the popcorn because I know there's going to be a plethora of different answers and half the responders will tell you brand X and the other half will tell you brand Y. I try to stay away from the brand wars, it is an argument that will never be resolved and will likely be dominated by faneurisms (what happens when a fan boy has an aneurism when someone throws their brand under the buss) on both sides.

Okay, back to skills right, that was your question. If someone is just starting out in the sport I have no issue whatsoever if they want to start out with a "cheap" scope, but I would also say this, with cheap scopes usually comes some heartache so make sure you buy from a reputable manufacturer with a good track record and also a good warranty. Over the years I have avoided Chinese scopes like the plague, five years ago and prior pretty much any scope out of China would crap its pants after a few weeks to a few months of use, is that really worth the hassle, but seasons change and we are seeing a new season for Chinese optics because reputable manufacturers are putting better QC in place. I honestly think that a good Chinese optics manufacturer can likely build an outstanding scope that performs well optically and mechanically with the right QC in place. Now, arguments about whether or not your scope was built by slave labor (although I feel this is somewhat disingenuous because couldn't the same argument be made about your phone, or the motherboard in your computer or... and the list goes on, and on and on) or you don't want to support the CCP, I get that, but that's another argument entirely.

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain I've even answered your question, but you bring up some good points that cause me to think if I could do something better or differently in my reviews that could help an even broader audience.

That is an amazing breakdown of what I was looking for, and you brought up a next level of assessment and decision making approach.
Your time and efforts in writing such detailed reply is highly appreciated

 

[Denys]

@M.H. I noted that you mentioned wanting a scope that will serve two purposes:

I am looking for a quality scope for western hunting and rest of the time shooting 600 yrds F class. I am a believer in buy once cry once.

I might have mentioned that I am an F-Class shooter, so I have a little bit of experience with optics for that discipline. Let's just say that these are very different purposes and there is no one riflescope that will excel in both. For F-class purposes, you want a high magnification riflescope with a second focal plane fine MOA-based reticle, or plain crosshair or crosshair/dot with 1/8 MOA turrets. By high magnification, I mean something with a top end starting in the 40X at a minimum. None of the scopes discussed here are suitable for that discipline. I'm not up on the parameters for a riflescope suitable for western hunting, but I'm confident that they are not the same as F-Class.

For F-Class, you do not want an FFP scope as the reticle at the top end will hide the X-ring, the 10-ring and a good part of the 9-ring. You will not be able to hold on the target and you will not be competitive.

The mantra "buy once, cry once" simply does not apply here.

 

[M.H.]

I ended up buying the Steiner H6Xi 3-18x50mm STR-MIL FFP for my next hunt, it is a total disappointment, I'm selling it,
the hide won't let me post it in the market place, looks like i am doing something wrong

 

[AznTactical]

I ended up buying the Steiner H6Xi 3-18x50mm STR-MIL FFP for my next hunt, it is a total disappointment, I'm selling it,
the hide won't let me post it in the market place, looks like i am doing something wrong

Why are you disappointed? I love it for its features within its price point.
You have to be a paying Hide member to post new threads in the px.

 

[jbuck88]

I'd be curious as well.

The thin reticle has me turned off the H6x line of scopes. I know some don't mind, but depending on how and where you hunt makes that more or less important.

 

[M.H.]

Why are you disappointed? I love it for its features within its price point.
You have to be a paying Hide member to post new threads in the px.

I'm no expert, so take this as just my personal experience. At lower magnification, the reticle feels cluttered and mostly useless—it only starts to make sense at around 12x or higher. The problem is, there are no fine hash marks for precise holdovers, so I have to guess between the lines when compensating for wind or elevation. That ties back to the magnification issue: if I want to make accurate adjustments, I have to zoom all the way in, but then I need to zoom back out just to reacquire the target for a follow-up shot. That’s too many steps during a critical moment when hunting. As for glass quality, it's not noticeably better than what Leupold or Vortex offers at this price point.

 

[jbuck88]

Thank you

 

[jbuck88]

I'm no expert, so take this as just my personal experience. At lower magnification, the reticle feels cluttered and mostly useless—it only starts to make sense at around 12x or higher. The problem is, there are no fine hash marks for precise holdovers, so I have to guess between the lines when compensating for wind or elevation. That ties back to the magnification issue: if I want to make accurate adjustments, I have to zoom all the way in, but then I need to zoom back out just to reacquire the target for a follow-up shot. That’s too many steps during a critical moment when hunting. As for glass quality, it's not noticeably better than what Leupold or Vortex offers at this price point.

I think this was my expected outcome. The run and gun guys don't seem to mind a thin reticle at low power. I hunt the the PNW rainforest, which means thin reticle are hard to see in real world hunting. Shooting at a range is different, but trying to pick the crosshairs up on wet, dark hair in timber is tough. Illumination helps, but then you are at the mercy of a battery and electronics.

I wish I could find something to replace the atacr 4-16 that I've been using. I really dislike the rotation ocular. My other hunting rifles have NXS 2.5-10x42's on them. I had high hopes for the H6xi, until I seen the reticle.

 

[steve123]

I'm no expert, so take this as just my personal experience. At lower magnification, the reticle feels cluttered and mostly useless—it only starts to make sense at around 12x or higher. The problem is, there are no fine hash marks for precise holdovers, so I have to guess between the lines when compensating for wind or elevation. That ties back to the magnification issue: if I want to make accurate adjustments, I have to zoom all the way in, but then I need to zoom back out just to reacquire the target for a follow-up shot. That’s too many steps during a critical moment when hunting. As for glass quality, it's not noticeably better than what Leupold or Vortex offers at this price point.

What scope will you try instead?

 

[M.H.]

What scope will you try instead?

First off, I’d like to thank @Glassaholic for putting together all those excellent comparison reviews.

In my case; I am trying to Narrow Down My Optic Choices – Real-World Input Appreciated
Not a pro by any means, so take this as a user doing their homework and trying to make an informed decision. I’m in the process of researching scopes—specifically how they track, their durability, weight, and general usability in the field.
I've noticed a lot of reviews out there seem polished by influencers or reviewers who are trying hard to like the product, even when there are obvious drawbacks. That’s fine, but what I’m really after is insight from those who have actual field time behind these optics.

I’ve broken down my search into three categories:

Hunting Use:​

Seriously considering the Schmidt & Bender 3-18x42mm META. It looks solid from a build and optical standpoint, but the price is a major hurdle. If I get over that, it might be the one.
In the meantime, I’m also looking at:

• Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 – decent magnification range, compact, but I’ve read mixed things about eye box and clarity.
• Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 – seems like a good balance of weight, glass, and tracking, though I’m unsure how it holds up under heavier field use.
• Vortex Razor LHT 4.5-22x50 ?? – lightweight and solid reticle options; good deals pop up occasionally.

Target/Competition Use:​

Here I’m looking for solid tracking, repeatability, and a reticle that won’t hold me back.

1. Kahles K328i 3.5-28x50 – love the magnification range and turret feel.
2. Kahles K525i 5-25x56 – classic choice, well-reviewed.
3. Nightforce ATACR 5-25x56 – bombproof reputation, though heavier than I’d like for crossover use.

​

Best of Both Worlds (Hunting + Precision):​

I really like the March-F Tactical 3-24x42—the specs are excellent and it looks like a true hybrid option. That said, I’ve read some user feedback mentioning tight eye box and issues with fast target acquisition, especially under pressure or in field positions. I'm also struggling to justify the cost when compared to optics like the Razor LHT and Leupold. If it really outperforms those in meaningful, real-world ways, I’m open to it—but it would need to be a clear step up.

I know there are a ton of excellent optics out there that many of you probably prefer. I'm just trying to narrow things down based on my needs and budget. If anyone has real field or match time behind any of the scopes I mentioned, I’d really appreciate your input—especially on tracking consistency, durability in hard use, and whether the premium price on higher-end glass actually translates to meaningful performance gains in real-world scenarios.

Appreciate any insight you guys can share—thanks in advance.

 

[jbuck88]

If it matters I tried 3 Razor LHT and 1 wouldn't hold zero. 2 have been great.

I had a mk5hd 3.6-18 with the illuminated TMR and it was great, but FOV wasn't the best. I should have kept it. It was on a lighter 6cm and the 35mm tube kinda threw off the balance. But would have been great on a different platform. The illuminated TMR was thick enough to pick out at 3.6x without the illumination on for the majority of the time.

I also had a nx8 I hunted with for a couple years killed a few elk and deer with it. I liked everything about it except the reticle at the low end was to thin to see without illumination in the timber. Or any kind of low light. I shot a elk at ~15yds with it and got turned off by the reticle. Killed another elk at first light and took it off the same day. Both times I was only successful because the illumination worked. That's too much faith on batteries and tiny circuitry for me to be comfortable.

I bought a nxs 2.5-10 and it just worked. Never lost zero in the probably 5 years I've been using it on my main deer rifle. I ended up buying a second even though I keep looking for something with a higher top end.

So far the only other scope I have complete 100% faith in for a hunting rifle is my ATACR 4-16. Its only fatal flaw is the rear ocular rotates with magnification. So when you pack the rifle on 4x, like everyone does while hunting, and you zoom in the rear cap now blocks the bolt from being able to cycle. I bought some bikini caps to try this year.

Also had 2 VX5HD and one was good the other wouldnt track true.


That's been my experience anyways.

 

[Denys]

First off, I’d like to thank @Glassaholic for putting together all those excellent comparison reviews.

In my case; I am trying to Narrow Down My Optic Choices – Real-World Input Appreciated
Not a pro by any means, so take this as a user doing their homework and trying to make an informed decision. I’m in the process of researching scopes—specifically how they track, their durability, weight, and general usability in the field.
I've noticed a lot of reviews out there seem polished by influencers or reviewers who are trying hard to like the product, even when there are obvious drawbacks. That’s fine, but what I’m really after is insight from those who have actual field time behind these optics.

I’ve broken down my search into three categories:

Hunting Use:​

Seriously considering the Schmidt & Bender 3-18x42mm META. It looks solid from a build and optical standpoint, but the price is a major hurdle. If I get over that, it might be the one.
In the meantime, I’m also looking at:

• Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 – decent magnification range, compact, but I’ve read mixed things about eye box and clarity.
• Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 – seems like a good balance of weight, glass, and tracking, though I’m unsure how it holds up under heavier field use.
• Vortex Razor LHT 4.5-22x50 ?? – lightweight and solid reticle options; good deals pop up occasionally.

Target/Competition Use:​

Here I’m looking for solid tracking, repeatability, and a reticle that won’t hold me back.

1. Kahles K328i 3.5-28x50 – love the magnification range and turret feel.
2. Kahles K525i 5-25x56 – classic choice, well-reviewed.
3. Nightforce ATACR 5-25x56 – bombproof reputation, though heavier than I’d like for crossover use.

​

Best of Both Worlds (Hunting + Precision):​

I really like the March-F Tactical 3-24x42—the specs are excellent and it looks like a true hybrid option. That said, I’ve read some user feedback mentioning tight eye box and issues with fast target acquisition, especially under pressure or in field positions. I'm also struggling to justify the cost when compared to optics like the Razor LHT and Leupold. If it really outperforms those in meaningful, real-world ways, I’m open to it—but it would need to be a clear step up.

I know there are a ton of excellent optics out there that many of you probably prefer. I'm just trying to narrow things down based on my needs and budget. If anyone has real field or match time behind any of the scopes I mentioned, I’d really appreciate your input—especially on tracking consistency, durability in hard use, and whether the premium price on higher-end glass actually translates to meaningful performance gains in real-world scenarios.

Appreciate any insight you guys can share—thanks in advance.

The March-F3-24X42 is a solid riflescope, but I'm wondering why you're now considering the March riflescope that is being discussed in this thread, to wit, the March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM. It's a newer design and it has a huge FOV, with its 25° AOV, compared to the 20° AOV of the 3-24X42. The increased FOV would come in handy for hunting as well and competition. For the reticle, I was going to suggest the FML-LDK, a nice simple clean design for hunting as well as competition, but it is not illuminated and that might be an issue for hunting. If you need illumination, then the FML-PDKI would be my suggestion.