I don’t care how good it is. The stupid us fov patent was a real shit move. I will never own a khales product ever again.
- Thread starter gamewarden
- Start date
Yeah, so we can buy their competitor's products with full specs. LOL.
328 sounds like an interesting scope...
Because the patent officer was either stupid or paid off. It’s not a patent on the design it’s just a specification. Any scope that exceeds their “spec” for the a fov at a Given mag range is “infringing” on their patent. Hense why the pmii 6-36 USA version has a fov blocker in it. It would be thrown out in court but smaller manufacturers don’t want to spend the legal fees and court hassle to try and fight it when swaro has more money and can afford to drag it out. So basically they punish their competitions scopes because they can’t compete and they know it.
28 degree is game changing, it’ll fell like bino vision compared to other scopes if it’s a true 28. Swaro did it with the NL’s eyepiece and kept optical quality high so hopefully they did it in the scopes.
The fov patent is bs though, it is a shit move, especially if it’s allowed to be enforced. As I stated earlier, a small constricted fov just sucks no matter the glass imo. I’m sure Swaro knows this and being primarily a company that caters to hunters it’s a way to keep a pretty big advantage over other scopes that have as good or better glass.
The fov patent is bs though, it is a shit move, especially if it’s allowed to be enforced. As I stated earlier, a small constricted fov just sucks no matter the glass imo. I’m sure Swaro knows this and being primarily a company that caters to hunters it’s a way to keep a pretty big advantage over other scopes that have as good or better glass.
As far as I know it's not a patent on something they actually developed. They have exclusive rights to use a FOV wider than a certain number of degrees (not sure on details but maybe selling it the US is the actual thing?). My guess is the reason they don't enforce it on US companies is because it would get ripped apart in our courts. But they have companies like Schmidt & Bender under their thumb. Hence why the S&B 6-36x56 has a different FOV depending on whether you buy it in Europe or the US. @koshkin would probably have a better grasp on what's going on with it but if I recall right he's no longer reviewing any Swaro/Kahles because of it.
There's a massive conversation on this. In the S&B 6-36 thread I believe is where it lives
Got any other details on this? I can only find 4 patents from Kahles M.B.H. (newest is 02.16.2021) and they're all related to turret internal design and nothing relating to FOV.
Could be Swarovski (same company).
There is plenty of info on it in the 6-36 pmii post and Dlo has covered it in his live streams
It is a Swarovski patent, links and discussion are in the S&B 6-36 thread as well as Ilya discussing it on one of his videos. The patent was challenged by Leica and invalidated in Europe, but not the US.
Compliance with this patent has been confirmed as the reason why the FOV of the US market S&B 6-36 and 3-18 are limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV, and it is likely the reason for the FOV being limited on the Tangent 7-35 and ZCO 5-27.
This new Kahles 328 at 28.7 degrees average apparent field of view is very, very wide... The only other scope that comes close that I'm aware of is the NX8 4-32 at 27.5 degrees @ 32x (AFOV of the NX8 @ 4x is only 19.9 degrees according to the specs, while this new Kahles 328 is nearly the same AFOV at both 3.5x and 28x.)
I'd like to look through this new 328, but after my very poor experience with that k624i many years ago I'm very reluctant to give Kahles any more money, lol
Compliance with this patent has been confirmed as the reason why the FOV of the US market S&B 6-36 and 3-18 are limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV, and it is likely the reason for the FOV being limited on the Tangent 7-35 and ZCO 5-27.
This new Kahles 328 at 28.7 degrees average apparent field of view is very, very wide... The only other scope that comes close that I'm aware of is the NX8 4-32 at 27.5 degrees @ 32x (AFOV of the NX8 @ 4x is only 19.9 degrees according to the specs, while this new Kahles 328 is nearly the same AFOV at both 3.5x and 28x.)
I'd like to look through this new 328, but after my very poor experience with that k624i many years ago I'm very reluctant to give Kahles any more money, lol
I love how everyone on here gets worked up into a frenzy of Karens over something as stupid as a company patenting something they created. Music gets patented every single day…Same with movies, logos, designs, guns, scopes, labels, ammo, brand names, etc... Hell, Harley Davidson patented their “sound” (45° V-twin), as stupid as that is. I’m surprised y’all aren’t bitching about that… 
Uh maybe because it’s not a legit patent and it directly hurts the sales of the actually good company’s products because they have to sell a watered down scope. I dont know about you but I actually like to get what I pay for. Just saying.I love how everyone on here gets worked up into a frenzy of Karens over something as stupid as a company patenting something they created. Music gets patented every single day…Same with movies, logos, designs, guns, scopes, labels, ammo, brand names, etc... Hell, Harley Davidson patented their “sound” (45° V-twin), as stupid as that is. I’m surprised y’all aren’t bitching about that…
Just a few more years until #FOVgate expires.
Wow, that was really cheesy
But I am baffled at the marketing intent behind this scope - intended for dynamic shooting sports... I'm not sure who they took their market research from but I'd have to say they got this one wrong, this will be a niche scope that some will like for the huge range but it is a range that is largely unused by the dynamic shooting sports.
Not often that's for sure.
Short body scope with 8x erector is a recipe for a finicky design which is not what dynamic shooting sports shooters are after; however, I will reserve judgement until I see one as I'm hoping Swarovski engineers helped with this one and may have pulled off some optical miracle in their design.
Agreed, and kudos to them for pulling off an ultra wide eyepiece if edge to edge clarity is managed well.
I still see the K525i DLR as being the better choice for dynamic shooting sports as I've got to believe it is much less finicky than the 3.5-28, but who knows what Kahles was able to pull off here.
DoubtfulUnless you intend to stop producing 525...
More than likely to help improve overall optical experience with high erector and short body, also to help with DOF???
There are lots of options, this is definitely a niche scope and will likely appeal to clipon shooters who love night shooting and need wide FOV at low mag but also want an impressive daytime optic. This is going to draw the attention of guys who really like the Schmidt 3-27x56 and will be curious to see how well this scope does in comparison to the Schmidt.
ZCO has influenced the market for sure but I am not convinced that 36mm actually provides the advantages that are claimed as I have seen better performing scopes in 34mm tubes (TT is better optically even at max elevation and Vortex RG3 6-36 has more travel and exemplary performance to the edge, and new Schmidt 6-36 may be better than both but I'll wait until I actually see one).
Based on Kahles' other offerings I've got to think this one will be north of the $4k border...
If you want to get what you pay for, then you’ll have to buy the product that owns that technology. This goes for guns, scopes, hunting products, car stereos, computers, smart phones, etc… How are you not grasping this concept of intellectual property rights? Or are you just butthurt that they patented it, and your favorite/preferred brand didn’t come up with it first?
What specifically is the technology that provides a FOV over 22 degrees? Seems like something that could be accomplished multiple different ways so I'm just curious what they actually invented as the only way to get a FOV over that. If they invented an actual tangible thing that allows for that and companies are using it, then sure I'd get it. But if they patented the very idea of a FOV over 22 degrees, no matter how you get it, that's moronic and probably why it got struck down in court for the European market.
Exactly why I’m wondering what everyone is bitching about…
Might depend on the level of the shooter and how they watch the environment around the target. Shooting King of Coal Canyon in 2023 really taught/enforced looking around the target to see what the grass, brush and trees were doing in the wind. Right now with my 525 DLR I run it at 15x on a consistent basis I found that power to be good for me for target acquisition, but now with more experience I could probably bump it up, but im comfortable there. Even on my Gen3 razor I'm around 15x. A wider FOV could let me zoom in more, perhaps to 20x without loosing the FOV I'm used to. I couldn't make it to Shot Show due to work obligations unfortunately, but I might be able to put hands on one in the near future.
Ignorant on optical designs. I work with RF. Why so?
Last edited:
$4300???
I think Khales just priced themselves out of the market. That's a lot for a Khales. And I say this as a Khales fan.
“If you want our patented technology you’ll pay $4300 for it in our shitty scopes” - Kahles
“Nah” - Everybody except like three retards
If optical IQ/DoF/eyebox are there, $4,300 isn't out of the realm. But that's a lot of "ifs" at this point. And their track record is producing scopes that "punch under" their retail prices. I guess I'm just optimistic and want more manufactures to push the envelope. I don't own any Kahles anymore, but I'd jump back in if the performance is there with this new design.
Owning the technology is one thing. Knowing 2 versions of a product you want exists and not being able to buy it because it's only sold overseas is what is pissing everyone off. Who wants to have a carrot dangled in front of them, only to be forced to buy a neutered version?If you want to get what you pay for, then you’ll have to buy the product that owns that technology. This goes for guns, scopes, hunting products, car stereos, computers, smart phones, etc… How are you not grasping this concept of intellectual property rights? Or are you just butthurt that they patented it, and your favorite/preferred brand didn’t come up with it first?
Unless the eyebox/FOV blows ZCO out of the water, I'm not seeing anything to justify a higher price tag.
I should have clarified, what I mean by "huge range but it is a range that is largely unused by the dynamic shooting sports" is that who is going to use between 3.5-10x on this scope in PRS/NRL? The FOV at 15x is where it's at, and to your point if you can move up to 20x and still have close to FOV of other high quality scopes at 15x this could give an advantage. Dynamic shooters often find themselves between 10x-20x, below that doesn't provide a huge competitive advantage, above that doesn't help with longer ranges and atmospherics but would be a benefit for NRL22 and other short range competitions as well as load dev (LD). I would have rather seen two scopes from Kahles, a 2-16x42 that was under 27 oz and a 5.6-45x56, but 3.5-28x50 is not a range that I see a lot of shooters begging for, at least not at 36 ounces, if this scope was closer to 30 oz it would be a fantastic crossover option but as it stands it is too heavy for this application. All that being said, I am curious to see this scope, it is Kahles' first 8x erector and it sure would be nice if Swaro assisted with helping them optimize the short body high erector design, my trepidation comes with the historically low resale value of Kahles scopes, maybe I can find a buyer who really wants this scope and I can get them a good deal and have the scope shipped to me for a review before going out.
Shorter focal range scopes with high erector struggle with forgiving eyebox, narrow DOF and finicky parallax (frequent adjustments needed at varying distances) to name a few, in order to better correct for these issues the optical design gets expensive fast so manufacturers have to decide if they want a very expensive scope or a scope that looks good on paper but real world performance struggles, most manufacturers opt for the latter.
Eyebox is suspect, but FOV clearly blows ZCO out of the water...
I'll rephrase it. Unless looking through it compares to looking through a set of binos like someone mentioned, I don't see the value. If it does in fact provide that type of image, perhaps there will be a larger market for it.
That's kind of the crux of the issue with Khales.
Alpha optics pricing (at MSRP) without Alpha specs.
I love my K624i's, they were a great value when I purchased them. But I have a hard time seeing the value in current Khales pricing.
It's amazing how many people are baffled by the concept of patents. The time when an amazing new mechanism is patented is over, now it is all about miniscule details that block as much of your competition as possible. What you call shitty buisness practice, is what every engineer is used to work with. (especially software engineers)
Or do you think if Schmidt or any other manufacturer held that patent they would let others go over their specs without an issue?
Also it seems that Schmidt buckeld without a fight, which is interesting if the patent is so laughable.
On paper it looks intersting hopefully I will get to play with it in February at the austrian hunting convention.
Last edited:
People seem to have low opinions of Kahles, and they seem well founded, but I've had some luck with their scopes. The eye box is tight, but I'm able to work with them. I look forward to trying this K328i.
To that end, if anyone wants to get rid of a K318i SKMR3, PM me.
To that end, if anyone wants to get rid of a K318i SKMR3, PM me.
I'll check it out again later this week for a more extended time frame and try to report back. Likely will be Friday when I finally get some free time. The shock of the FOV had me forgetting about everything else.
Remember that US laws are such that you have to prove that you didn't break the law/breach a patent, not like the rest of the free world where the law makers/patent holders need to clear state what the correct interpretation of laws/extend of pattents are.
A small company like ZCO doesn't have the time, energy or money to challenge the patent in court, so would rather err on the side of caution.
Just like how every company says they can't export items due to ITAR restrictions, whereas the reality is ITAR don't clearly outline the extent of their own rules and the consequences of breaking them are so high that companies just don't even try.
Look up Louis Rossmann and the issues he has had with NYC and bills/fines to see how the legal system in the US actually works.
Spoiler alert: it's not looking out for the little guy.
@Glassaholic it’s a clean scope. Looked at it yesterday and the eyepiece is enormous. Like freakishly big. Fuck ever getting a TRIGGERCAM or something over it. I had it next to a 525i for size comparison. Hard to really tell details inside but optically it looked good even at the edges.
I personally can’t get over how disproportionate it looks being so short forward of the center saddle area, but being that the 8x sits behind that area it stands to reason they needed that space to make it look good while not compromise a lot.
I personally can’t get over how disproportionate it looks being so short forward of the center saddle area, but being that the 8x sits behind that area it stands to reason they needed that space to make it look good while not compromise a lot.
Would appreciate that
Interesting noob, the eyepiece in the promo video didn't look that enormous but I’ll have to take a look again. This one has me really curious.
I posted a video on my IG yesterday of the 525 next to it and specifically that section. I’ll go again tomorrow and get a better video. It’ll be on my IG.
I dumped IG after the 2020 marxist fiasco but maybe time to pick up again (cause now I trust them, jk!
). Yea seems like less and less people are actively on IG. I’ll post it on my YouTube as well. Easier to reference long term I suppose.
I never started using it.I dumped IG after the 2020 marxist fiasco but maybe time to pick up again (cause now I trust them, jk!
Videos that you can't rewind, only pause and rewatch.
Pictures that you can't zoom in on.
Full of influences shilling their free products.
What a crock of shite.
FWIW you can rewind but it’s just a pain in the ass cause the slider is super thin and sensitive lol and you can zoom in by pinching out with 2 fingers but if you don’t hold it it’ll revert back to normal. Best thing to do is take a screen shot and zoom in on your photos app. But yea i get it, lots of other reasons to not get one or use that platform.
I remember trying to zoom in on a picture someone showed me, and asked how to stop it from springing back.
When they said I couldn't I decided then never to use that stupid app.
I thought it was a crock of poo too but Insta is the reason why I won a pistol from the NRA Annual Meetings this year. I guess people do really win free stuff. SHOT and NRAM is probably the only times when I uses Insta. ;-)
Pulled this together to see how it stacks up to other Alpha scopes. Couldn't find the total windage and elevation adjustments for the Kahles but aside from the exit pupil the specs fit right in with the others. And the exit pupil is about the same as the March (both on 28x). FOV blows them all out of the water. Almost identical FOV on 28x as the ZCO 420 @ 20x. Field of view on the NF NX8 2.5-20x is 41.8' on 2.5x so the Kahles beats that. I know FOV isn't the end all be all but it has other comparable specs.
I’ve won several things on IG giveaways.
El / Wind is on their website, 34 Mils x 13 Mils
The two ZCO numbers are street price not MSRP? If so the RZR G3 should come down to $2450 street from EO.
Similar threads
