- Thread starter M77
- Start date
Not really. The glass is a little better on the Steiner but the Pro is very good too. I looked through mine side by side.
Thanks! Looks like you're selling the T6Xi and keeping the Pro. Is it because of the turrets?
Yes but not because they are bad but to uniform my scopes. The Steiner was the odd man out. I actually liked the turrets on the Steiner in their feel and the way the numbers changed with rotation.
Above seven jumps to a mode where little dots all over the reticle light up but don’t remember a glare in lower left, will try to test tomorrow
Last edited:
Thank you. Reading your synopsis helped. With what I'm looking for I think I'm better served by the T6Xi. The difference I can spend on a case of match ammo.
Just checked this morning, no glare from illumination module that I can see. Like I said above, at setting 6 and below only the center cross is illuminated, but at level 7 and above there are little dots at all the hash mark points and numbers that light up. I am almost thinking there may be two illumination modules, one that powers low intensity and one that powers high intensity and the one that powers high intensity lights up these little dots throughout the reticle as a whole - not sure if this was intentional or not.
Glassaholic (or to whomever can compare):
when comparing the Steiner to the Nightforce on 15-16x, which is easier to get behind in terms of eyebox? What about at 18x on the Steiner?
I own a Kahles 3-18, and love it out to 15x. Between 15-18x, I struggle to get a good sight picture because the eyebox is so small.
I have astigmatism and near sightedness, -7.5 to -8 D. Hence, I am fairly sensitive to eyebox issues on LPVOs and other scopes. I find these ultrashort scopes to have tighter eye boxes.
when comparing the Steiner to the Nightforce on 15-16x, which is easier to get behind in terms of eyebox? What about at 18x on the Steiner?
I own a Kahles 3-18, and love it out to 15x. Between 15-18x, I struggle to get a good sight picture because the eyebox is so small.
I have astigmatism and near sightedness, -7.5 to -8 D. Hence, I am fairly sensitive to eyebox issues on LPVOs and other scopes. I find these ultrashort scopes to have tighter eye boxes.
That happens in any higher powered scope that has daylight bright illumination. Especially if you look at them inside or in anything other than bright sunlight.
@Glassaholic Interesting. Might reach out to Steiner and see what they say. I do have the little dots also.
As Rob01 mentions above, this happens with a lot of high powered scopes with daylight bright illumination, but I would say a lot, not all as I believe it is dependent on the type of illumination module that is used. Also depends on what is being illuminated, with my particular scope it has the MSR2 reticle that only has the center cross illuminated so this sparkly effect is more pronounced, if you have a reticle like the SCR2 where the entire reticle illuminates you will not notice it because every etched part is already illuminated. I did not intend to indicate something was "wrong" as this is a fairly common phenomenon, just pointing out what I am seeing.
Very good insight as usual. I just checked an MK5 HD 3.6 and the inside lights up like a Christmas tree at 6+ power.
I will say this, the T6Xi 3-18x56 is one of the most forgiving mid-range scopes with regard to eyebox. The ATACR 4-16x42 was also pretty good, but throughout the mag range I always felt the T6Xi was easier to get behind, only at 18x did I feel the T6Xi 3-18x56 was starting to feel a little tight, but still better than most scopes.
Out of curiosity, did you ever get a comparison to the AMG? Probably not a super fair comparison but I was just wondering.
Adding to what @Glassaholic stated about the T6xi: it has some impressive glass and it goes toe to toe with the Mk5 HD, Razor G2, and NX8s I've seen. Also, you can't see much of the inside of the scope body or the ocular piece. It's as if you were looking through just a piece of glass. Kinda hard to explain.
It’s better glass than the Gen 2 Razor by a good deal from my scopes in the comparison. I wouldn’t say toe to toe.
I haven’t yet. AMG is still at home and I’m off service. I’ll have more time off this fall. So I’ll be able to get home and compare them. I don’t expect the T6Xi to Best it.
Have to agree with this. I find Vortex to be waaaaay overhyped anyways though. Hopefully I will get mine out tomorrow and get some through the scope pics. The weather in Northern CO has been absolute crap lately.
Despite my bias in favor of Vortex... I have to agree. I think so far based on my experience, I find Steiner to have the best glass, then NX8, Mk5, and Razor G2. MK5 and NX8 might change positions, I need more time behind both.
The only thing I don't like about the Steiners right now are the glare inside the scope from the illumination and he locking turrets mechanism they developed. Everything else is pretty daing solid especially if you can get one for $1400 in the PX, which is what a G2 goes for.
The locking turrets in theory make sense, at least on the windage turret. I don't think I will ever lock my elevation turret. In practice they are not very intuitive or user friendly. I don't have huge hands, but it's still awkward getting my fingers into the scalloped areas without rotating the turret. Really wish Steiner used a focus group on this 
.
.Shouldn’t be any “glare”. If you set the power on the illumination to the surrounding light conditions it should be fine. If you put it on max inside you will get some flares on other areas.
Sounds good! I will probably pull the trigger here soon on a 3-18. I have an AMG on my JP 6.5, and it’s hard finding a reason to take that scope off and try something new.
The only thing that would remotely make me question taking my AMG off my 7SS would be weight. I otherwise love that optic. Wish vortex would make a 4-20 AMG.
My preference for that role 2.5-15
While I agree on the weight, I do wish it was a little lighter, everything else on the 2.5-15 in my personal preference pointed to it when I ordered my third optic for an AR. I compared it and the 3-18 extensively side by side owning both. The FOV is huge and reticle is easier to pick up at low magnification for hunting. But the reticle choice could be a little better if it had a tree.
Just got a T6i 3-18x56 SCR2. It was a bit of a mix up as I was suppose to receive the MSR2 reticle. Decided just to keep the SCR2, with ocular adjusted I can use the tree/etc down to about 8-9x. Initial impressions are good.
It'll be a few weeks before I get this mounted on something, but It'll be interesting to compare.
Plan to set it up side by side with a US made 3.3-18x50 XTR3 SCR2 (non illuminated), new current version (foreign made) XTR3 3.3-18x50 SCR2 illuminated, & Leupold MK5 3.6-18x44 TMR (non illuminated). Both of my XTR's came with the exposed windage turret included FWIW.
I've currently been running a pair of the Mk5's on AR's along with the US made XTR 3.3-18. Honestly the MK5 has been tits on the AR's. They don't have a tree or illumination, but are the lightest & shortest, very forgiving parallax, & cuts mirage very well. I might be more critical if I hadn't gotten a smoking deal on those MK5's.
It'll be a few weeks before I get this mounted on something, but It'll be interesting to compare.
Plan to set it up side by side with a US made 3.3-18x50 XTR3 SCR2 (non illuminated), new current version (foreign made) XTR3 3.3-18x50 SCR2 illuminated, & Leupold MK5 3.6-18x44 TMR (non illuminated). Both of my XTR's came with the exposed windage turret included FWIW.
I've currently been running a pair of the Mk5's on AR's along with the US made XTR 3.3-18. Honestly the MK5 has been tits on the AR's. They don't have a tree or illumination, but are the lightest & shortest, very forgiving parallax, & cuts mirage very well. I might be more critical if I hadn't gotten a smoking deal on those MK5's.
At some point I’d like to test another Mark 5, my early adopter copy had some issues. Just wish they’d offer the PR2 Mil reticle in it, why no one at Leupold thinks that reticle wouldn’t be good in the 3.6-18 is baffling. Would also like Leupold decision makers to wake up on the illumination front, it’s not 2010 anymore. I think an illuminated PR2 Mil would convince me to ignore the lame 35mm tube issue.
Were you one of the lucky ones with the $999 deal at Cabelas a few years back?
I have several Leupold Mark 5 Pr1 (180725 & 180726) scopes. I have one Tremor3, but it is too busy for me to enjoy. They are fantastic if a person qualifies for vet/le or other vip pricing. The 5x25 pr2 is also excellent. I just received a Zeiss LRP S3 4x25x50. It is comparable to the Leupolds, but weighs about 10 more ounces. I look forward to glassaholic’s tests because he is objective and fair.
Yep got 2 for 899 ea. Had the same complaints as you about the reticle & illum, but @ that price no regrets.
Sorry for the sidetrack on the MK5, but it lays some context for what I'll be comparing the T6Xi to.
Trying my best to be subjective, the MK5 does cut mirage very well & parallax is the more forgiving than the XTR's & I like the Turrets/feel a lot.
I've grown to like the uncluttered TMR. Honestly even if the PR2 was available I'd prefer the PR1 illum. I heard one of the Leupold guys on a podcast mention the parts they use for the illumination were $$$ their cost & I guess they aren't willing to compromise, still $500 extra for illum is a hard pill to swallow. 26oz is pretty light for a HD mid range IMO. Leupold seams pretty Fuddy with their reticles, but my initial resistance to the TMR has morphed into an appreciation for the simplicity. I've shot 5 matches with the TMR (2 in the rain) & not once have I walked off a stage thinking if only I'd had a tree or illum I may have gotten another impact. Now that I have a little more experiance I do think I'd appreciate the .2 subtensions on the PR1 & the NV friendly illum would be great for the inevitable clip on in my future. The bottom end for parallax is 50y on the MK5 and that may very well be one of the reasons it's so forgiving in the mid range for parallax. To be clear (pun intended), I'm not just talking about actual parallax, but more so image clarity in the mid range when parallax setting isn't ideal. Think troop line on the clock. If your perfectly centered up behind the scope as we should be then we're not inducing parallax anyway, but some of my scopes (XTR) suffer in image clarity. Last match I shot was with the XTR and 1 stage was 20 rounds 90 seconds 300y, 100y, 500y, 300y. You really don't have time to F around with parallax on a stage like that, and I tend to skew parallax heavily in favor of the shorter targets i.e. set it for 200 & leave it. The clarity loss at 500 is noticeable, but still doable. MK5 shines in that type of situation. Having run a MK5 on a bolt gun for several matches I've found another advantage. You know those fucking stages where you have to shove your rifle through a little porthole or between 2 cattle gate rungs. The little 44 objective + low elev turret slides right in there. Couple times it allowed me to get in there on a bag or all the way in when others couldn't.
I'm going to put the T6Xi on my 22GT so I can start getting a feel for it & do some comparisons.
FWIW the PR2 is coming for the baby mark 5. Just don’t know when. But they had Kyle lamb i think on Instagram running it.
So I have a 2-15 and a 3-18. The turrets on the 2-15 are pretty good. My 3-18 turrets are quite a bit softer and quieter. Anybody else have that issue. Wondering if they just need some spinning to move some grease around or if I should send it in?
357Max - thank you for sharing your real experience with the Leupold Mark 5 3.6x18x44. Too many people just bash Leupold because of past experience. I think the Mark 5 is a different scopeand has many useful features, plus good customer service.
Don’t have a comparison to another T6, but my 3-18 is what I’d call soft.
Same I’m not impressed with the turrets. Like our pst Gen II are much nicer.
My 2.5-15 is not bad at all but the 3-18 definitely has me considering sending it in.
Anyone have thoughts/experience on using the 5-30 for rimfire? I’m setting up a Bergara B14R, it will primarily be used to shoot PRS22-style from 25-300 yards and punch paper from a bench. Not planning on formal competitions, just plinking around the farm and range with my kiddo.
I already have razors for days, otherwise I’d really contemplate a Steiner 5-30 for my rimfire.
Should work fine. It has 26 mils of elevation so on a 20 moa base you will have about 18 mils and if you went on a 40 moa base you would be able to get to 400 yards with about 23 mils.
Have you taken a look at the new tract 4-25?
I hadn’t, nothing against Tract. I primarily was otherwise considering the Athlon Cronus BTR 4.5-29 and Ares ETR 5-30. I have access to solid deals on those and the Steiner through EV which makes them exceptionally attractive for me. I would consider the PA Glx 4.5-27 just because I have a soft spot for PA but I’m not willing to buy another non-Plx PA scope without looking through it or at least a lot of glowing reviews from respected folks. I’m more after value than a price range for this side-project .22 but want to keep the glass quality at least around the LOW/Japanese level.
Thanks Rob! I think I trust your envelope math more than mine. I was thinking 20 MOA base, burris XTR rings with 5 additional MOA should have me safe to 300+ with .22LR.
You should look at the Tract if you plan to go long with a .22 as it has 47 mils of elevation and with it on a 0 MOA base you will have about the same as a Steiner on a 40 moa. You can toss the Tract on a 60 moa base and dial to past 600 yards.
TORIC UHD 4-25X50 34mm MRAD ELR FFP Rifle Scope
Tired of running out of elevation adjustment? This NEW TORIC 34mm MRAD ELR scope is designed with an Industry Leading 47 MRAD of total adjustment, so you can DIAL FOR DAYS! Add a side focus parallax adjustment that dials from as close as 15 yards out to infinity, and is specifically designed for...
tractoptics.com Yeah on 25 moa cant you should be fine to 300 and almost 400 depending on the round used. Should be around 20 mils give or take.
@CajunExpat1
I put the 3-18 T6xi on my rimfire. I like the scope but there’s better options for rimfire if you are going to stretch the distance. My backyard target at 365 yards takes all my available elevation to reach, and the image when dialed to max is really poor. If I dial partway and hold it’s the same result. Not sure if the 5-30 would be better or worse in this regard.
I put the 3-18 T6xi on my rimfire. I like the scope but there’s better options for rimfire if you are going to stretch the distance. My backyard target at 365 yards takes all my available elevation to reach, and the image when dialed to max is really poor. If I dial partway and hold it’s the same result. Not sure if the 5-30 would be better or worse in this regard.
Strange - I do not own the 3-18, but my 5-30 dialed to the max does not have poor image quality. I guess I am surprised to hear this about the 3-18.
I would very, very rarely (if ever) shoot past 300 with the rimfire I intend to put this on. I would most like to know how the image quality of the 5-30 is from 50-200 yards at higher magnifications and if the 5-30 has the resolution to pick up .22 holes in paper at 100.
The primary user would be my 12 year old, who has been shooting with an RPR rimfire and a hand-me-down Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21 but would like a little more magnification and resolution.
I may be looking at the wrong scope altogether, but I have had good experience with Steiner optics in the past and I think I could pick up a 5-30 at a competitive price.
I appreciate the advice y’all.
I have shot at 50 yards, when I first built my rifle, and then 100 a few times to zero the rifle. 50-200 yards should be ridiculously easy to see .22 holes with my scope (5-30). I find the image very clear, and the optical quality very good. It has good glass. have not shot .22 with it, but It is easy to spot .243 holes (6mm GT).
I don't know anything about what scopes to use for .22 competition, as I have not yet competed in .22 events. I am just answering the issues you raised in your last post.
I am interested in .22 events, though, as I have a 6 year old boy who is going to want to compete.
I don't know anything about what scopes to use for .22 competition, as I have not yet competed in .22 events. I am just answering the issues you raised in your last post.
I am interested in .22 events, though, as I have a 6 year old boy who is going to want to compete.
Thanks! That is very helpful information and just what I needed to hear.
We’re not planning on competitions either, just want to shoot around the farm at coke cans, clay pigeons, steel swingers, etc at 50-200 with good glass and limited eye strain. Occasional paper targets for groups at 50-100 and the instant feedback of easily seeing shot placement is fun for my kid.
There is a 300 yard rimfire range we go to occasionally which is the max distance I think this particular setup would get used at for the foreseeable future.
Similar threads
