Probably… But that also might apply given how stiff and a pain in the ass it was to adjust.
Rifle Scopes New for 2025, the Kahles K540i
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
Footage of GBM posting about how turrets are hard for him to adjust
Boom roasted
Boom roasted
Give me a call at 916-628-3490 and I can discuss the pros and cons of each with you
- Richard
Maybe they'll update the review after June 2026 when the Swarovski patent expires and they can compare a full FOV S&B 6-36... That would be a much more fair comparison than using the current FOV limited US market version.
I'm going to try my best not to buy any more scopes until after June of 2026 to see what comes to market after the patent expiration.
Ilya posted it recently in another thread. Look at the bottom for adjusted expiration date. He believes it to be correct as some of the later stacked patents were abandoned.
Post in thread 'New Schmidt Bender?'
New Schmidt Bender?
Any info on this: https://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/6-36x56-CM-II-High-Performance-LPI-GR2ID-1cm-cw-DT-II-MTC-LT-ST-II-ZC-LT/16A-911-422-M3-I6
www.snipershide.com
US10620422B2 - Far-optical device - Google Patents
A far-optical device comprising a reversal system and an adjustable optical magnification means with more than fourfold magnification, wherein the far-optical device has an optical beam deflection means which at all magnifications ensures a subjective field of view of the far-optical device of...
patents.google.com
I did pull the trigger and now personally own both a ZC527 (and a 420) and a K540. Shot the 540 this weekend and compared both side by side. Overall, I think it's a bit of a wash. Each has strengths and weaknesses. I think the FOV is a measurable advantage for fast-paced positional PRS competition, period. I shot a match where I have had trouble finding targets, and I was faster in transition on the Kahles. I didn't necessarily hit more targets, but I used significantly less time finding them on the usual five positions, two widely spaced target stages. I still prefer the glass, fit, and finish, as well as the reticles on the ZCOs. I like the LSW and FOV on the Kahles. I dislike the janky non-locking windage and the magnification that goes the wrong way on the Kahles. The DRL turret is on par with the 10 mil ZCO turret but superior to the 15 mil. Lots of shooting in the next couple of months, so more to learn, but at this point, for the pride of owning nice stuff and shooting from a bench, the ZCOs are still an incredible achievement. For maximum speed on short par, precision rifle competition, the Kahles is likely to produce higher scores. Although I subjectively prefer it less, the ZCOs remain more physically appealing.
Last edited:
There have been several guys who have compared the 540 to the march and the general consensus that I was told by those folks who have seen both is the March was there pick. The 540 eyebox is incredibly tight as a result of extreme wide angle ocular design, the Windage turret is to small, stiff and the click spacing is very tight.
Get behind the March 5-42 PRS and you’ll quickly see why so many guys are saying wow!!
The 540/328 does not have a tight eye box. The ZCO 840 certainly does by comparison, but the Kahles 540/328 certainly doesn't have a tight eye box. They’re pretty darn generous.
Last edited:
Yeah the k540 does not have a tight eyebox.
You’re trying way too hard to pump up march.
That isn’t want the folks I’ve spoke to have said on more than one occasion. The fact the AOV in the 540 ocular is massive at 29.8 degrees actually does affect the eyebox and plenty of folks have noticed and commented on it but I’m sure everyone here knows best.
Weird because all these people that actually own it and use it all the time say it doesn’t. Funny how the internet works.
Funny how comparisons with some of the top shooters in prs with them side by side said otherwise…. In fact a few of them wear Kahles hats.
Just stop. The 540i does not have a tight eyebox.
Why are you trying to get validation?
March sponsored shooter. And while I generally don’t have a problem with pumping a company you rep this is a little over the top. Been using the k540 for a while now and I no longer own the March 5-42 gen 2. Take that for what it’s worth. I did like a lot of its features and I like March a lot as a company but it isn’t super PRS ready yet. I was running the ZCO 840 and TT 735 most recently and switch between the 3 based on well whatever I feel like. The k540 isn’t perfect but the eyebox isn’t tight. Even at 40x when I’m zeroing my gun.
You literally have NEVER used the PRS model of the scope so incredibly misleading post to say the least. In fact have you ever even seen the March PRS edition in person, no you haven’t.
There is a PRS edition of the scope for a reason and comparing the standard March 5-42 Gen 2 to the 540 isn’t the correct comparison, nor is it the optic I’m speaking of.
Love it or hate it and believe what you’d like there have been several occasions where shooters have compared the PRS Edition March to the kahles and the general consensus was that the March is in fact a better all around package for PRS.
Increasing the ocular AOV of a scope will increase overall FOV however it does in fact make the eyebox tighter and shorter, this isn’t my opinion it’s actually how optics work in general. Kahles put a 52mm ocular on the 540 to combat this issue and while it did help some the optic is actually difficult to maintain sight picture under recoil. In fact so much so several of the sponsored shooters for Kahles do not run this model and have stayed with the 525 DLR.
The turrets on the March are in fact better and the Kahles windage turret is in fact small, has entirely too tight click spacing, and overall is difficult to turn which is compounded by the anti spin feature that when grabbed between knurling basics means you have to grab the entire turret with your hand.
The glass in the kahles just flat out isn’t as good as the March and it’s been compared side by side over and over and virtually everyone who looks through the March is blown away by the glass quality and its ability to cut mirage which is does flat out better than the market ZCO and Theta included.
Kahles has also already had some issues with the 540 and shooter have had to send them back, I’m sure Kahles will get this sorted but let’s be real here…. The Kahles isn’t perfect and to shit in an optic you’ve never used is poor taste at best.
I am also not some spnsored shooter for March I am the designer behind the prs scope and the reticle designer and of course I have a bias opinion. The reality is my opinion isn’t the one I am speaking of here it’s various other Shiites who have indicated this with direct comparisons.
Last edited:
I think you need to sit back and take breather. The way you are going about this isn’t helping the case for March. While I don’t doubt it is a good optic and I trust Shane’s opinion on it the way you are talking about other optics and in some points saying things that factually aren’t true makes me, and probably others for that matter, not even want to try the March. It’s very off putting and isn’t helping.
Goes both ways when I see people post things that aren’t true and claim things that aren’t. Again my statements aren’t my opinion as indicated above… they are the opinions that have been shared to me by other shooters.
Honestly at the end of the day an individual like yourself was never going to shoot a March anyways as your clearly in the Kahles camp which is fine it’s a very good optic as they all are at the top levels. But let’s be honest on both sides about the claims being made.
This post like many on snipers hide are riddled with folks who don’t actually shoot prs, know nothing about the March, have never seen one and yet somehow KNOW what they are talking about.
Let me rephrase what I said.
How you are going about this isn’t helping March, but hurting it. I would reevaluate how you are engaging with people because it isn’t helping.
By the way, I’m using a ZCO 840 right now, not a Kahles. Pretty audacious to assume I wouldn’t try the March.
Attachments
Well this is ironic as you’re making accusations about the 540 eye box and have never used one!
If you’re actually sponsored my March, I’d revoke every benefit the company is giving you if I were the owner. Jesus. You look like a larper moron on here quoting optics theory against multiple real word experiences.
Except I have used them side by side on several occasions.
Are the comparisons and conversations of shooters comparing them side by side not real world experiences? Speaking of irony isn’t that ironic that it’s ok to take some folks comments as fact but then seem to completely discredit others when they don’t align with yours.
Fact: shooters compared them side by side… shooters who aren’t affiliated with March made the claim that the March was a better overall package.
Fact: ocular design does impact eyebox, relief, and FOV into an optic.
Fact: Folks on this site who have never seen the March are claiming things they know nothing about.
BJ with all due respect bud I dunno that I’d be giving anyone advice about reputation.
March come get your boy, this fucking clown is killing you and your reputation.
You had ‘some input’ on a reticle design, that’s just a copy of the MPCT1X with the MILXT two tenth alternating hashes added to it. Get over yourself. It doesn’t mean anything and nobody cares. You didn’t design anything or come up with anything original and ‘what you did’, didn’t grant you any kind of status.
Attempting to gaslight a bunch of grown men that own the scope and have owned, used and compared the products you’re talking about isn’t going to work. GTFOH.
Cheers
Idgaf who you are or what you think… That’s funny ^^^ 
Bullshit you’ve tried it for any useful amount of time or at all. This is your original post. No one that’s tried anything starts with referencing what other people have said about it instead of their own experience. At the very least they’re going to include their own experience(s) with the other claims. You’re so full of shit, no quadrupling down on all your nonsense and claiming that you have experience with the 540. Feel free to post pics of you behind the 540 or on any of your rifles. Until then, I call bs.
Also, don’t really give AF so there that.
I already emailed her.
Lmao don’t do that. I literally asked Mari at SHOT if the optical formula had been changed from the gen II and she said no. What’s poor taste is thinking you have any credibility left after this shill job. Go sell cars clown.
At no point did I say the optical side or the optic had changed, what has is much of the turret look and feel, the reticle, feature sets. I was at SHOT I remember you coming by the booth. Again I’ll reiterate that YOU personally haven’t used the PRS Edition as I indicated.
I see that reputation is well earned.... All that cash and still can't afford a damn mirror, sheesh.
I fricking hate Swaro/Kahles as a company due to their lawfare, but, uh, man, @Onebadstang16 you're not doing yourself (or March) any favors here.
@X-ring mentions the 540’s eyebox at about 5:30 here. At 40x he calls it “super super forgiving.”
Ray is a good shooter.
And yes, he doesn’t appear to have a March vid on his site. And no, I’m not making any claims one scope is better than another…heck I want March to be better.
No dog in this fight. I’ve never looked through either scope.
But I am a potential customer.
For those who have peered through both scopes, perhaps a calm description of each scope’s eyebox would be helpful?
@X-ring mentions the 540’s eyebox at about 5:30 here. At 40x he calls it “super super forgiving.”
Ray is a good shooter.
And yes, he doesn’t appear to have a March vid on his site. And no, I’m not making any claims one scope is better than another…heck I want March to be better.
No dog in this fight. I’ve never looked through either scope.
But I am a potential customer.
For those who have peered through both scopes, perhaps a calm description of each scope’s eyebox would be helpful?
Ok so if the optical formula isn’t changed then how is it different than the gen 2 5-42? It isn’t except for some cosmetic and reticle changes. So my post stands, when I reviewed the 5-42 gen 2 the eyebox wasn’t great and the parallax was still very picky. Had to adjust it multiple times per stages and the band was very narrow at different yardages. So much so that adjusting it even the slightest would throw my TriggerCam out of focus. On other scopes like my ZCO moving the parallax doesn’t change the camera focus hardly if at all. I only say that to illustrate how it was. I don’t dislike March and they do a lot of good things and you got to them sales numbers up I get it, but damn this ain’t the way to get it done chief.
Your experiences don’t mimic those of folks actually shooting the optic in competition so I guess we can agree to disagree. I will say all wide angle optics will inherently have tighter eyeboxes than those of standard configurations. That too affects the kahles 328/540
very limited time w/ the March PRS model, lots of time with the K540i. They're both forgiving & I'm incredulous re: k540i eyebox being tight
I did shoot the 5-42…..in matches….literally posted stage footage on my instagram. Even with the unfocused camera. If other people feel differently then have it but you’re paddling upstream at this point.
Agreed.
========
About the DOF of the 5-42, did you ever try that March MD disk (modifier disk)? I take it that it increases DOF. Should be included in the box.
The description in the link references competitors’ increased DOF needs. Knocks down some light; not sure how that affects comps during midday.
I did, and it was included in the box. A nice touch I must say. I used it in a couple matches during the summer time when mirage was really bad. Over 100 degrees ambient temp. It worked okay and the light reduction wasn’t enough to be noticeable but it didn’t make a huge DOF difference either.
This thread is yet another reason why this place needs an Influencer tag for people who take goods or services from vendors for free but are not commercial sponsors.
www.snipershide.com
-Stan
“Influencer” Tag? (Inform vs Influence)
For users who are not Commercial Supporters, but get free stuff from companies and advocate for it on this website, can we get an Influencer tag or something? Think of it same / same as being a registered lobbyist. I think it would be nice to be able to easily differentiate between users...
www.snipershide.com
-Stan
Here’s a little story about those MD disks. Interested to hear about people’s experiences.
That’s one shiny barrel!
That’s one shiny barrel!
Reputation for standing up for friends when someone’s a dick to them for no reason and calling out claims which simply aren’t true? Yeah no thanks. The haters can hate and I ain’t afraid to stand up for shit. The 540i doesn’t have a tight eye box at all and will knows for dam sure what he’s talking about. Not to mention yeah I’ve shot all those scopes too. So whatever. You don’t like my delivery? That’s fine. Lets chat and I’ll try to do better in the future. But none of that makes me wrong and if I am ever for whatever reason I’ll admit it and try to learn.
I fricking hate Swaro/Kahles as a company due to their lawfare, but, uh, man, @Onebadstang16 you're not doing yourself (or March) any favors here.
@X-ring mentions the 540’s eyebox at about 5:30 here. At 40x he calls it “super super forgiving.”
Ray is a good shooter.
And yes, he doesn’t appear to have a March vid on his site. And no, I’m not making any claims one scope is better than another…heck I want March to be better.
No dog in this fight. I’ve never looked through either scope.
But I am a potential customer.
For those who have peered through both scopes, perhaps a calm description of each scope’s eyebox would be helpful?
Man I appreciate your comment I do as a potential customer, however in the comparisons that I’ve been informed of by actual shooters on the firing line it’s been commented that the wide angle optics are tighter on the eyebox than standard. Which actually agrees with the design compromises of a wide angle optic, they do have a tighter eyebox by nature versus a standard lens configuration, however they offer a massive FOV Increase. It’s a calculated compromise for optics manufacturers, the Kahles has huge FOV but that design requires a compromise even with a 52mm ocular design. Kahles didn’t make the ocular 52mm for no reason, just like March didn’t make the ocular 46mm and choose 26 degrees for no reason. It’s a compromise… I’ve been careful not to put my own opinion on these threads and if you follow me post you’ll see I don’t generally shit on any other optics as a rule of thumb. However just because someone disagrees with the statement doesn’t make that individuals statement any more or less true. The reality is every optic has compromises in them, the kahles has some areas that need attention based on those discussions and it’s been noticed by shooters.
Again I came in here to comment both the march compared to the kahles and posted, it was the individuals here who felt the need to personally attack me. I simply passed the opinions I had received on to this forum.
I’ve spent considerable time behind all of the scopes and I’ve compared all of them quite heavily in fact it’s part of my role to know the market. But my opinions aren’t posted here if you ask for them I’ll gladly give them to you personally.
But to sit here and discredit other shooters comments because you or anyone else disagrees is the very nature of a forum and debate. The same folks here who are belittling me for the passing of opinions are the same folks who expect their opinions to be fact.
Go get behind the optics yourself, do your own comparison like shooters already are and form your own opinions. I’ve said this 1000 times over now on this forum… ALL of the top scopes are good every one of them has pros and cons. The optics market evolves and so does that’s known as the top scope, zco didn’t exist a decade ago, no one knew who the hell theta even was then either.
Bud if you think I personally care what your opinion is your mistaken, the fact is other shooters DO think differently from you and they HAVE made the comments as such.
Similar threads
