• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta 5-25 v Minox 5-25 v Nightforce 7-35 v Schmidt & Bender 5-25 v Vortex 4.5-27

hk dave

Optics Fiend
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jun 7, 2011
    2,305
    881
    So CA
    Tangent Theta TT525P 5-25x56mm vs Minox ZP5 TAC 5-25x56mm vs Nightforce ATACR 7-35x56mm F1 vs Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56mm vs Schmidt Bender PMII 5-26x56mm L/P DT

    This review and comparison has been a long time coming. It’s essentially the comparison I’ve always wished someone did in an unbiased way. As I spent time behind these scopes and shooting various cartridges like 223, 308, 6.5cm and 338 lapua, using ballistic calculators, range finders, chronographs, wind meters; I marvel at where shooting technology is today.

    I don’t know if this time can be considered the golden age of shooting technology, but it certainly feels like it to me.

    We live in a world where someone can pick up a $1K bolt action rifle, a $1K scope, spend a little money on a ballistic calculator and a range finder and with a little instruction and affordable amazing factory ammo, be hitting something 1K yards away with relative ease.

    It’s bringing many new shooters into long range shooting and it’s exciting to see the advancement of our hobby/profession.

    Now here is a comparison of 5 of the most sought after scopes today.

    Please keep in mind that when comparing these scopes, a lot of what I’ve written and observed is what many would consider serious knit picking. I’ll start with saying that simply put, every single one of these scopes is phenomenal and absolutely deserves to be considered a top tier scope.

    In many cases, the only way you would notice much of what I’ve written is to literally have them side by side, and in some cases you have to really pay attention to notice a difference.

    I don’t know that any of these scopes could ever cause you to feel handicapped and i’d honestly be happy running any of them.

    In terms of sample size, I’ve owned a half dozen S&B PMIIs, half a dozen NF F1s, a couple of Minox ZP5s, one TT and a few Vortex Razors so take that for what it’s worth.

    Here is a photos of the scopes side by side so you can get an idea of size difference. From top to bottom you have the Vortex Razor, Minox ZP5, S&B PMII, Tangent Theta and finally the Nightforce.

    TpnfGTd.jpg


    Diopter Adjustment

    I feel like it is important to note that with First Focal Plane reticle scopes, your diopter setting can be crucial. It can make the final difference in image quality and whether your optimum point of optical sharpness coincides with it also being parallax free.

    There are quite a few posts and “tutorials” on how to do this correctly, from pointing the scope at a clear blue sky to using the illumination in a dark environment.

    The only issue I’ve had with these methods is that despite being middle aged, my eyes still focus very quickly and it’s difficult for me to NOT get a sharp reticle.

    I reached out to a snipershide member about a problem I was having with my TT, and he explained how he set his up.

    So following his lead, I essentially set up a target and used the parallax knob to get the sharpest image possible. I then adjust the diopter to get the sharpest reticle possible then check for parallax. I did this back and forth until I got a parallax free image with the sharpest image possible and sharp reticle. Then tested parallax at different distances to be certain.

    I’ve found great success with this method and gave me some relief as I was starting to get concerned that I had a bad TT.

    All 5 scopes have euro style fast diopter adjustments. What this means is, it only takes a few turns to adjust the diopter, as opposed to 30+ turns.

    I prefer the euro style adjustments considerably more as I have a difficult time even get a reticle to turn blurry on the slower/finer adjustment type diopters.

    The TT, Minox and NF have locking diopters, which I think is nice to have so they definitely have an advantage over the others. The S&B and Vortex lack this option however I simply use a sharpie to make a witness mark on the scope so if I ever turn the diopter by mistake, It’s easy to get back to the exact point I want it to be.

    Turrets

    In terms of adjustment amount, I personally prefer less adjustment per revolution. Less than a decade ago, manufacturers started moving towards more and more adjustment per rev, and I’m not a big fan of this. Maybe it’s the way my brain works, and I’m not as quick or intelligent as the next guy, but I like things in units of 10.

    The ability to lock the turrets is a nice feature but not necessary. I used to not care about zero stop, but I’ve gotten spoiled and zero stop is a must. All of these scopes have zero stop. Some kind of indicator of what revolution I’m on is nice as well.

    For me, an adjustment turret has to be tactile. I want to know exactly what adjustment I’m on without having to guess. I hope for as little play as possible on the turret once it is set. Every turret on these scopes stands out as being excellent. I have no complaints about how any of them “feel”. But since we’re here to nitpick, let me go into more detail.

    Tangent Theta: Without a doubt, this scope has the best turrets I’ve ever played with. There is nothing quite like the “feel” of these turrets. I honestly thought all I read about these turrets was nonsense and that the large price of admission for this scope was influencing peoples’ opinions, but I was wrong. It is difficult to explain. It’s akin to a perfect instrument having been created by a master craftsman. It’s different from other turrets and has a more mechanical feel? As I said, difficult for me to explain.

    It isn’t about just how firm the clicks are. In truth, my old Optronika Premier 5-25 had really heavy clicks, and the Minox I currently own has the sharpest clicks of the bunch, but it isn’t just about the heaviness of the detents when it comes to the TT.

    Despite being 15 mils per turn, there is never any doubt where you are. There is no play at all once you’ve dialed in your adjustment.

    It also has a somewhat unique zeroing feature. You turn the top center of the turret and you can easily set your zero, then just lock it back down. It’s very easy to do but there never any concern that you’ll somehow unlock it on accident. While a really nice feature, I don’t see myself using for the specific purpose of a switch barrel rifle. I can see myself screwing it up. To me, it’s just a nice way to zero without the need for a tool, not a way to have multiple zeros.

    The turret has a small indicator that pops out when you go into the second revolution.

    I have absolutely nothing negative to say about this turret. I’d prefer it over any other turret in existence today even at 15 mils per rev.

    The windage turret works the same as the elevation turret.

    xcD5HbG.jpg


    Minox: There have been some complaints about earlier generations of these turrets feeling “mushy”. Indeed my first ZP5 did indeed have “mushy” turrets. I sent in the scope to have my reticle changed, and they just sent me a new scope as the old one couldn’t clear customs. Nice customer service.

    The difference in turret feel between this new scope and the previous one is night and day. These new turrets are extremely tactile. Anyone that views the video can get a sense for it. They are the firmest clicks I’ve ever seen on a scope except perhaps my old Optronika Premier… although I can’t be sure as I no longer own that scope. While they are the firmest, they also have a “sharp” sound and sensation as opposed to a heavy thickness like on the S&B. The only con I find with these turrets is that there is a little play in between adjustments, but not enough to give me doubt as to my setting.

    These turrets have 15 mils per turn and also has a small indicator that goes from black to white for when you’re in the second rev.

    When going into the second rev on my first ZP5, it was extremely difficult. I thought for a micro second that I might break the scope. After I felt safer about it, I didn’t care about the added tension as I’d have little reason to dial in that much elevation on that rifle anyhow.

    Now with the new ZP5, there is still a small amount of added tension when going into the second rev, but it doesn’t cause any issues dialing in your adjustment. Looks like they’re paying attention to us.

    The windage turret works the same to the elevation turret.

    EpWNAgT.jpg


    Nightforce: From an aesthetic standpoint, it may sound silly, but I’ve always thought of Nightforce turrets as being beautiful.

    The turrets are also very tactile and nothing anyone would likely complain about. Just barely lighter than the Schmidt. NF has done an excellent job with these turrets.

    NF has taken a different route when compared to others and is using an older style type turret that rises as you turn it and shows lines. There are no pop-up indicators, color indicators, etc. I believe this is mainly because of us.

    Years back, when the NF BEAST was released, many of us complained and complained about how we just wanted an FFP NSX with higher magnification. NF essentially delivered exactly what we wanted so no complaints there.

    Now I do have one thing I don’t like. The turrets are 12 mils per rev, which is just fine, but when you’re on the second turn, there are no second set of numbers like the other scopes. It’s not a big deal and in any scenario where you’re past 12 mils, you probably have the time to figure out that 14 mils is actually 2 on the second rev, but I would have liked a second set of numbers… i.e. 13, 14, 15, 16. I’m guessing this likely didn’t happen because if one has a base that has enough cant, you could potentially have enough elevation to go into the 3rd rev, but for some odd reason, it bothers me.

    This can all be easily remedied with a custom turret label so it’s not a big deal, but again, we’re knit picking the pros and cons of some of the best scopes on planet earth. Hence why I bring it up.

    The NF has a cover for the windage turret. Removing it gives access to a full size turret. This is a nice touch as there are many of us that mostly hold for wind.

    XAbq8PP.jpg


    Vortex: The Vortex turrets have the lightest clicks of the group. This is in reality an almost ridiculous statement because they are perfectly tactile and firm clicks and I imagine they would please just about anyone with the way it “feels”. There’s never any doubt where you are on the scale. With 10 mils per revolution, it has the best spacing between clicks as far as I’m concerned.

    As you go into the 2nd rev, a pop out indicator shows itself, and then again as you go into the 3rd rev, the pop out indicator comes out further with an additional etched line showing you where you are. It is very well done and causes no change in tension of the turret when you’re moving to a different rev.

    These turrets feature a locking aspect that is very simple and effective. Pull the turret out when you want the turret to spin freely, and push the turret in to lock it.

    The feature that really stands out with these turrets is the zeroing mechanism. It’s different from anything else on the market. As this scope has been on the market for a considerable time I’m guessing most folks know and understand how it works but for the sake of those that don’t I will attempt to explain it.

    Essentially, you remove a cover on the top of the turret and there is an interior scale that moves independently of the exterior scale printed on the turret itself. The really nifty aspect of this that it allows you to make witness marks on the interior scale so you can have different zeros for different loads or cartridges. I don’t know if this was done on purpose or by mistake, but it is a nice feature.

    The windage turret works the same as the elevation and also features the locking mechanism.

    P3pNC4z.jpg


    Schmidt & Bender: On this specific Schmidt, I opted for what is now considered, the older Double Turn turrets. I’ve owned various Schmidts with both the DT turrets as well as the Locking MTC style.

    Frankly, the turret “feel” on the DT turrets is extremely nice. It exudes quality. While the Minox clicks are louder and a bit more tactile, they have a hollow, sharper feeling whereas the turrets on the Schmidt feel “thicker”? I think that’s the way to describe it. Think rolls royce.

    The turrets are 14 mils per rev and when going into the 2nd turn, small square windows on top of the turret turn yellow to signify the 2nd rev.

    The windage turret is a little different from the others in that it only shows marking every 0.2 mils, however there is a perceptible click and adjustment at every 0.1 mils. Not an issue at all as in reality, maybe some of you can guesstimate wind to that degree of accuracy, but I can’t.

    s9CFKZv.jpg


    Please note the following is MY subjective opinion. Everyone has different requirements and likes/dislikes.

    Turret Feel: TT > Schmidt > Minox > NF ≥ Vortex

    Turret Stiffness: Minox > TT ≥ Schmidt > NF ≥ Vortex

    Overall Turrets (Taking feel and all features into account): TT > Vortex > Schmidt = Minox > NF

    At the bottom of this post, is a link to a video of the turrets and adjustments being spun.

    Parallax

    The ability to remove parallax is paramount in a long range optic. It can easily be the difference between a hit or miss by a significant margin.

    It is interesting that folks get so frustrated about the “numbers” on their parallax knobs not lining up with actual distances. According to manufacturers, the numbers printed are for specific atmospheric conditions and should only be used as a gauge of what direction you’re turning the knob. They rarely if ever really line up with actual distance and then you have to ask yourself, are we talking meters or yards? (Oddly, the numbers more often than not actually do line up correctly with the S&B.)

    I personally don’t look at the numbers or even the scale really. I make sure my diopter is set correctly and the just spin the parallax knob like it’s a focus ring on a camera. I move it back and forth until I find the sharpest point and then I check for parallax error. If there is still parallax error, from there I turn the knob a small amount until I’ve removed it. When everything is setup correctly, the sharpest focus should also coincide with a parallax free image. If this is not the case with an optic at this level, it could likely be user error. I imagine there may be specific atmospheric conditions where this may not be the case, but I honestly don’t know. If the image is 95% of the 100% sharpness it could be but I have a no parallax error, I just send the round down range. In reality, you’re likely losing more resolution and image fidelity from things like mirage or haze anyhow.

    Having said this, in order to effectively use the parallax knob, I prefer them to be larger and easy to turn. I really dislike stiff parallax knobs. I’ve also owned scopes where for some reason or another, I found myself spending more time than I should removing parallax. “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

    I’m happy to say, all of these scopes have everything I want in a parallax knob.

    An interesting thing to note is that the Minox and TT parallax knobs only rotate approx 180 degrees. The other turrets attempt to use almost all of the 360 degrees of rotation. I have no preference as they are all easy to use.

    The other thing of note is that both the Schmidt and NF can focus REALLY close. Like 10 meters close, which is wonderful for 22lr or even dry fire practice in the house. The Vortex can focus as close as 32 yards or 29 meters. The TT and Minox come in at 50 meters.

    Apparently, it’s very difficult to design an scope that is magnificent optically but can also focus close. Seems you have to give up something to get that feature. I always wonder at this, considering the Schmidt has been doing this for well over a decade and NF seems to have figured it out.

    If I had to chose between close focus and magnificent optics though, I’d go with magnificent optics myself.

    Hopefully with continued advancements in optical design, we’ll see more scopes that bring everything to the table.

    Tracking

    At this level in the playing field, if a scope doesn’t track, it’s beyond shameful. It is essentially the most important aspect of the scope and if the manufacturer didn’t engineer accurate tracking, they should be spanked.

    All of these scopes with the exception of the Minox, have been shot regularly and up to approx 10 mils of elevation without any issues. I haven’t had a lot of opportunity behind the Minox as it is fairly new to me since it is a replacement. I imagine it has good mechanics, and I will update this post if people are still interested a few months down the line.

    There are quite a few videos of tracking tests for random samplings of these scopes on youtube.

    The amount of available elevation in all these scopes is phenomenal. Every single scope provides me more than 20 mils of elevation on a 20 moa base. More than enough for most users. The scope that really stands out is the NF. Even though it has a significantly higher magnification (which historically with scopes of this magnification generally meant less elevation adjustment), it has a lot of available travel. Certainly more than what it states on their spec sheet. On a 20moa base, with 100 yard zero, I get around 22 mils of travel. That’s pretty amazing. I know others have had success running it with a 40 moa base, giving them 28 mils of travel!

    Optical Clarity

    Ah yes, what most folks really want to know is, “how good is the glass”? Like many of you, I have a glass fetish.

    Before I get into specifics about each scope, I want to point out that these are my personal observations and certainly not the end all.

    I have spent time behind each scope in various lighting conditions from overcast and flat, to bright and contrasty, to hazy to heavy mirage.

    Please note that they are all incredible from an optical clarity standpoint. You really need to sit these scopes side by side in most cases and study the image to see any real difference between them. In many cases, you would likely struggle with it and go back and forth on your findings.

    All of them should please all but the absolutely most discerning individuals.

    At one point out of sheer curiosity, I put up a basic resolution chart, similar to the USAF 1951 chart out at 100 yards. One thing I’ve noticed is just because a scope can resolve a very specific black/white resolution chart, doesn’t really encompass your true experience with the scope. There is color involved and how CA affects edge definition as well as the level contrast and how it plays a role in what you ultimately see as detail. There were times where one scope seemed to out-do the other and then in a different situation it would be vice versa.

    PGxJJvK.jpg


    Hence why many experienced folks will say that glass is often very subjective because everyone’s eyes are different.

    Tangent Theta: From most reports I’ve read, this is supposed to be the new Holy Grail of sports optics. I’m here to say that optically, this scope can not disappoint the shrewdest person. Of all the scopes here, I believe it’s tied with the Minox with its total resolving ability (when I refer to total resolving, I mean with all factors included, not just a black and white resolution chart). The detail you see with this scope is easy to see and does not require effort. Simply put, the image is stunning. It has a good amount of contrast while still resolving a ton of detail. This is no small feat as you usually get one or the other.

    With regards to the USAF 1951 type chart, I was able to see down to group -2 section 6. Those are some itsy bitsy little lines and numbers. At 25x two other scopes could also resolve to the same group and section, and one even further, but overall image quality, when you take into account contrast and CA, the TT came out tied with the Minox as the best to my eyes.

    There is no discernible CA even in a very high contrast situation.

    This may sound strange given everything I’ve read says this optic does not tunnel, but mine tunnels an inconsequential amount from 5x to approx 5.2x. It doesn’t matter of course but I call them like I see them.

    If this scope isn’t optically good enough for you, you should leave the sport.

    Minox: This scope obviously shares some lineage with the TT. If you look at the TT, Minox and Premier scope dimensions, they’re nearly identical. As far as I know, a large part of the original optical design for all of the scopes were done by Optronika. It is very possible and likely that TT and Minox tweaked the prescription and coatings. We’ll likely never know since it’s all proprietary info. But there are some subtle differences which leads me to believe they are not the same.

    To my eyes, this scope is pretty close to the optical equal of the TT. It may have slightly more contrast than the TT, but I’m uncertain at times.

    Getting behind this scope will likely make your mouth drop. I know it did with mine. I remember lying down behind my first one and saying, “Holy crap this is incredible!”.

    There is no discernible CA even in a very high contrast situation.

    Interestingly, there is no discernible tunneling unlike its cousin the TT.

    Simply put, the Minox and TT are optically the most amazing scopes I’ve ever looked through.

    Nightforce: Prior to the ATACR line being launched, the only thing people ever complained about with NF was the glass.

    From what I recall of the few NSX scopes I used to own, they have plenty of resolution, but didn’t have much “pop”. This never caused me to miss a shot as missing the shot was usually my fault to begin with and certainly not because there wasn’t enough contrast in the sight picture.

    With the ATACR line, NF has changed their design and coatings, and we now have both.

    The image quality of the 7-35 F1 is nothing short of amazing.

    With regards to the USAF 1951 type chart, with the scope set to 25x I was able to see down to group -2 section 6. Set at 35x I was able to see to group -1 section 2.

    While this prescription doesn’t handle CA like the TT or Minox, it still does an excellent job of minimizing it in high contrast situations. In any otherwise normal situation, I think one would have a difficult time inducing CA or noticing it.

    It has been difficult to really get a really good handle on the image at 35x because mirage and/or atmospherics always seem to get in the way. From what I can tell, I do believe the optic continues to resolve all the way to 35x.

    I can’t see myself wanting to shoot at 35x but it makes for a great tool for observation.

    The optic has plenty of “pop” as many would call it I really enjoy spending time behind it.

    On a side note, I know this review doesn’t include the NF 5-25 F1, but I did compare it with my 7-35, and I felt the 7-35 was just a touch better optically. Aside from the wider field of view of the 5-25, slightly more elevation, and lower cost of entry, I kept the 7-35 and sold my 5-25 because the idea of being able to zoom to 35x and still resolve detail is pretty nifty.

    There is a tiny bit of tunneling from 7x to 8x but I didn’t buy a 35 power scope to shoot it at 7x. I didn’t even notice it until I started looking for it for the express purpose of this review.

    Schmidt & Bender: As most know, this optic has been the gold standard for a very long time and rightfully so. It’s been barely a few years that many of todays scope manufacturers have been able to bring to us a scope that can honestly compete head to head with the S&B.

    While it is has a much older optical design, the image fidelity it provides is still at the very top of all sport optics.

    The TT and Minox may barely edge it out optically, but we’re talking in minutia here.

    With regards to the USAF 1951 type chart, I was able to see down to group -2 section 5.

    The Schmidt resolves everything you can throw at it, focuses down to 10 meters, has plenty of “pop” and has a parallax knob that is extremely easy to use. The image is a bit warmer than the other scopes. I used to think this was just sample variance, but after having owned a few of these scopes, I realize it’s by design.

    It does have less contrast than all the other scopes save the Vortex and handles CA like a king. Only the TT and Minox handle CA better and that’s not saying much since inducing CA on the Schmidt is pretty difficult. The image though is very pleasant to look at.

    The only downside (to some, not to me so much), is that the Schmidt is essentially a 7-25x scope. It tunnels pretty heavily from 5x to 7x. The image size decreases from 7x to 5x but the field of view does not increase.

    Vortex: Optically, this scope is excellent.

    With regards to the USAF 1951 type chart, I was able to see down to group -2 section 5 so it tied with the S&B. However, like I mentioned before it isn’t just about resolving little lines on a black and white image.

    In then end, I find the S&B image more pleasing as the Vortex has a bit more CA than the other scopes. But again, it isn’t a significant amount and mostly visible in high contrast situations.

    I’d say it does more than 90% of what the other scopes can do? Which basically puts it above nearly every other scope i’ve ever looked through in the last decade. A decent amount of contrast. More than enough to give you that feeling of “pop”.

    This may be one of the scopes I’ve spent the most time behind and I’ve always enjoyed it. I’ve never felt handicapped in any way with it.

    No tunneling at all. There is something interesting that happens when you go from 4.7x to 4.5x but it isn’t tunneling.

    Overall Optical Resolution: Minox = TT ≥ NF = S&B > Vortex

    USAF 1951 Style Resolution Chart: NF ≥ Minox = TT > Vortex = S&B

    Image Contrast: Minox ≥ TT > Vortex = S&B = NF

    Chromatic Aberration Control: Minox = TT > S&B > NF > Vortex

    Depth of Field: Minox = TT > S&B ≥ NF = Vortex

    Eye Box Flexibility: Minox = TT = Vortex > NF = S&B

    Reticles

    Reticle choice is a very personal thing. Everyone has their own justification for their reticle choice.

    I’ve seen many arguments about how someone thinks H2CMR is the king… no the SKMR is… no no, how about the EBR-7… you kidding me, I prefer Gen2XR… etc. It goes on and on.

    Right now, for my personal taste, Minox easily has my favorite reticles. The MR2, MR5 and MR4 are just done right. I currently have and MR4 and it delivers just about everything I could want in a reticle and has the perfect subtensions. Vortex makes some great reticles and I really like my EBR-2C except I prefer the floating dot on the MR4, and the fact that the mil numbers are on the outside of the christmas tree as opposed to the way Vortex does it. But this is obviously personal preference.

    I was not a fan of Nightforce’s Mil-R reticle, but after a couple of years of using it, it has grown on me. Once you study it and use it, it works just fine. I feel it is a good thickness at 25x. It does feel a bit thick at 35x but I just don’t see myself shooting at 35x.

    With the S&B I opted for the MSR reticle. I think it’s a nice and simple design and one of my favorite for a non christmas tree type. The only thing I’d change in it is the make the center crosshair subtentions thinner like on the Minox MR5 or Kahles k624i.

    Where the TT disappoints me, is with the Gen2XR. You either love it or it’s just good enough. For me it’s the latter. It’s plenty serviceable and the subtensions are great for long range, but I feel it is a bit dated. It seems TT can’t manufacture the scopes fast enough so they have no interest in updating the reticles. I do remember when Gen2XR was considered one of greatest reticles ever though. People paid a huge premium to get one on an S&B or USO. To each their own.

    Warranty & Customer Support

    Awesome warranties are great, but I prefer a warranty I never have to use.

    Of the many scopes I’ve owned, the only ones I’ve never had to send in for warranty service, were made by Nightforce. That’s not to say they don’t break, all mechanical things break eventually, however of the 7-8 I’ve owned, I’ve never had a problem. Perhaps I’ve been lucky but the confidence it inspires is priceless.

    I’ve had the opportunity to interact with customer support with all the other companies and here are my limited personal experiences:

    S&B has a gem in Jerry Ricker. He is very quick to respond to any inquiries and the one time I needed a repair, it was done state side, quickly and efficiently. They recently clarified that they have a 20 year warranty. Don’t know that I’ve ever used anything for 20 years of my life, so i’m plenty happy with that. S&B has been around since 1957. I figure they’ll be around a while longer.

    Minox warranty is handled by Blaser USA. They are very responsive and try hard to make things right. The only issue is that scopes need to be sent to Germany so turn around is longer. I sent in a scope to change a reticle (seems I was the first ever to do this), and it couldn’t get back through customs because of the reticle change. They simply sent me a new scope without a seconds hesitation. I was fine with that. They took care of me and given that I always have a backup scope or two that I’m playing with, the turn around time has never bothered me. Minox has a lifetime total coverage warranty.

    I recently attempted to contact Tangent Theta over my Christmas vacation, and I got a response from a kind and lovely lady at ATI that the TT technical team is on vacation until next year. Luckily, some fellow snipershide members got me sorted out and my problem ended up being user error so no harm done. Far as I know, TT has very few issues as their QC is supposed to be extreme.

    Vortex is what all manufacturers should aspire to be in terms of customer service and support. They have no equal in this. You might know already, but they have an online presence and are constantly looking for ideas to make their products better. Without any solicitation on my part, I have been messaged quite a few times with helpfulness. They have an unprecedented, unlimited, transferrable, no questions asked warranty.

    Misc

    Here’s where I put into words some of the minutia of things that sort of might not matter, but I noticed here and there.

    The first thing that comes to mind, which is kind of silly almost, are scope caps. Let me say that I despise Butler Creek. Since they were bought out by whoever bought them, the plastic they use changed and I get about 2 range trips worth of use out of their caps. Pretty much screw them. Don’t care if they fix it or fixed it. Done with them.

    The Schmidt 5-25 come with them. :( Sad Panda. When I receive a S&B 5-25, I immediately replace the caps with Tenabraex caps. It’s interesting to note that Schmidts come with Tenabraex on their other PMII models.

    Here’s where it gets silly… like really? We’re talking about scope caps now? The TT also comes with Tenabraex, but they’re different. They’re better. They sit flatter and have a tighter fit when you close the cap. Attention to detail!

    The NF come with Tenabraex cap standard as does the Minox. The Vortex comes with none.

    All 4 scopes save the NF use magnification rings that rotate independent of the ocular housing. The NF entire ocular housing turns to change magnification. Some people hate this so be warned. Something about scope caps getting in the way. They are Tenabraex so they do turn, but my solution is to simply remove the caps and put it in my pocket when i’m shooting. One nice thing about the way the NF magnification works is it’s very easy to grab and use.

    The TT and Vortex have smooth magnification rings. Does this really matter? No, as they aren’t horribly difficult to turn, but I personally opt for a switchview in that situation. The S&B ring is rubberized and easier to turn than the others, but that could be sample variance. The Minox has a bulge that sort of can act as a switchview which is nice.

    When it comes to zeroing the scopes, the NF is most work intensive to setup. Not saying it’s difficult by any means, but the other scopes are easier to not only set your zero, but also your zero-stop.

    They’re all similar in size and weight save the Vortex. It’s def heavier than the others. Once mounted on a bolt gun though, seriously doubt you’d notice. I’m waiting for a new 6.5cm gas gun to arrive and I’ll be putting it on that and see how it balances. I’m guessing it wont matter, given the 22” barrel and PRS stock I’m also putting on that rifle.

    More will probably come to mind and i’ll update if I can think of it.

    Final Thoughts

    I am extremely pleased with all of these scopes. I’d be happy with any of them to be honest. After having bought and sold many other scopes, these are the ones I currently like the most in this high magnification heavy weight category.

    There is a significant difference in overall pricing between the scopes, from the Vortex Razor coming in at the lowest price of the bunch at $2500, all the way up to the $4500 for a Tangent Theta with the rest sprinkled in between. That’s a pretty big leap between the Razor and TT.

    I think it’s interesting that the S&Bs have come down in price considerably. They are now being sold at similar pricing to when they were first released over a decade ago. Not too long ago S&B pricing was hovering around $3500+. While expensive, I still thought in many ways they were worth it. Around the time S&B pricing went into the stratosphere, Vortex shows up with the Razor Gen II and put everyone on notice. Suddenly, you could have a boat load of features, with top tier glass for less than $2500. The only penalty was weight. I bet that really shook all the other manufacturers up.

    Since then, S&B streamlined the number of offerings they have (and they had a ridiculous number of offerings which explains their old pricing structure), and now they’ve become extremely competitive pricing wise. Matter of fact, it is now only a bit more expensive than the Vortex. I don’t know how this will affect the perceived quality of their scopes but I know quality hasn’t dropped in the slightest.

    Then comes along Minox with a scope that is in my opinion, optically the equivalent of the current king, the Tangent Theta, but gives you better reticle options at a much lower cost. Time will tell if it has any issues or tracks as well as the TT. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone with a TT that didn’t track true. Matter of fact, there are people who seem to get a kick out of figuring out just how exacting the tracking on a TT is. Whatever the case may be, the Minox is a scope worthy of being considered amongst the best in the world.

    The Nightforce ATACR 7-35 F1 was a big surprise to me. I didn’t expect it and was perfectly happy with my Nightforce ATACR 5-25 F1 but the idea of their 7-35 is so appealing that I had to see what it was about. They took a phenomenal scope and added onto it. Since Nightforce entered the FFP game, they’ve really done amazing things.

    Each scope has its pros and cons and I feel like all of them will impress anyone looking for a top tier tactical scope. I say, choose the options you can’t live without and the reticle you most desire, and have at it. In the end, only you can decide if one is worth the extra cost of entry over the other.

     
    Wow, thanks so much for the write up! It's rare that you see scopes like this being compared head to head. I have had the Razor, Schmidt, TT, and currently own the Minox and I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of them.
     
    Nice write up but my experience with Minox has been different..Ive tried several different Minox 5-25s and I found the optical quality varied considerably from scope to scope and the two S&B 5-25s I own is optically superior to the Minox scopes ive used.. But this is with my eyes and its my opinion.
     
    Amazing write up Dave! A lot of your observations go hand in hand with what I found after owning some of the same scopes you tested here. Appreciate the time you took to get out and examine them all in such detail.

    One thing I’d like to add on the NF is is ability to set your zero stop wherever you want. The process of setting your zero is the most tedious, but I’m able to set my zero stop 1 mil below 0 which is great on a switch barrel as I don’t have any shifts larger than that between calibers.

    Another thing I can appreciate is that the Vortex is actually pretty compact length wise considering it’s mag range and what other scopes in similar mag ranges measure in at.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Great write up Dave! I agree with about 98% of what you wrote.. The only two things I would say, to my eyes which is again subjective, the TT has a better eye box than the Minox.. I would also say, after having two of the Minox ZP5 MR4 scopes, they are inconsistent in the turret department. The first Minox I had, I didn't realize how good the turrets were on it until I purchased a second one. I have a newer serial numbered model than yours and the turrets are not even close to yours on your video... Thanks again Dave, great review and nice collection of glass!
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Primus
    Hey Dave,

    Thanks very much for a fantastic review. I presently have ZP5 MR4’s and am very happy with them. I’ve always wanted a S und B, but now, my ZP 5’s give me no reason to change. That could change in the future and your write up serves as a good primer, should I choose that course.

    Thanks again and congrats on a job very well done !
     
    Whelp this pretty much solidified my choice to go with the Minox. The TT looks amazing and I wouod love to support a Canadian company, but the price jump to a TT is just way out of my reach. Perhaps once they update their reticles I’ll consider them. Until then, I doubt I’ll be disappointed with the ZP5.

    Thanks for this review! It could not have come at a better time!
     
    Outstanding job on your review.I have a lot of interest in all of these scopes. Thank You
     
    I was really hoping there would be a “”and then I got a Cronus...”” at the end of this :p

    Awesome review for those of us who won’t ever get to play with many of these.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: adluginb
    Awesome review. I think it pretty much solidifies the fact that only having one of these without the others beside it to compare, they are all winners. I went with the NF 7-35 as my first "top tier" scope and have been extremely happy as I think I wouldve with any of the others.
     
    I've been waiting for your write-up.. Thanks.
    if we throw out the cost outliers (vortex low and TT high), which one would you choose if forced to keep just one?
     
    I've been waiting for your write-up.. Thanks.
    if we throw out the cost outliers (vortex low and TT high), which one would you choose if forced to keep just one?

    That is an excellent question. I think that price range puts those 3 (NF, S&B, and Minox) in the heart of the "top tier" category.
     
    I was really hoping there would be a “”and then I got a Cronus...”” at the end of this :p

    Awesome review for those of us who won’t ever get to play with many of these.

    lol... well there was this comparison I did a couple weeks ago. :)

     
    I've been waiting for your write-up.. Thanks.
    if we throw out the cost outliers (vortex low and TT high), which one would you choose if forced to keep just one?

    As an answer to that question I'm gonna say =X
     
    Thanks for this excellent and detailed write-up.
    Minox sounds like an excellent all around option... if my Premier Tac ever goes down, this is the direction I will go. Appreciate the intel on this plan.
     
    Good write-up and I largely agree with your observations.

    The way my recommendations have been for the last year or so mostly goes along with what you said: best general purpose performance for the money is probably Razor Gen 2 (for now), but you have to be OK with the weight. If you are willing to pay a premium for perfection, get a Tangent Theta. Those turrets are really something special, as is the depth of field and microcontrast. Minox is very close to it optically, but less consistent. If you want to get as close as possible to a Tangent Theta performance without a Tangent Theta pricetag, MInox is your best bet.

    However, overall, pick a reticle you like and roll with it.

    ILya
     
    As an answer to that question I'm gonna say =X

    Ha.. stop being a politician.

    I like the MR-4 alot (used the AMG EBR-7 all last year), but think the MIL-C would work just fine as well. I have a 4-16 ATACR and really prefer the entire ocular that rotates.. it's a ton of real estate for hunting or high stress shooting. I also agree the ATACR turret seems to be well thought out in terms of size, readability and number size, etc. 35X seems like a nice bonus as well.

    I think your Minox turrets are by far the best I've seen.. seems to be some inconsistencies there as others have mentioned.

    might just have to stick with the AMG for now.

    thanks again.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: deersniper
    Good write-up and I largely agree with your observations.

    The way my recommendations have been for the last year or so mostly goes along with what you said: best general purpose performance for the money is probably Razor Gen 2 (for now), but you have to be OK with the weight. If you are willing to pay a premium for perfection, get a Tangent Theta. Those turrets are really something special, as is the depth of field and microcontrast. Minox is very close to it optically, but less consistent. If you want to get as close as possible to a Tangent Theta performance without a Tangent Theta pricetag, MInox is your best bet.

    However, overall, pick a reticle you like and roll with it.

    ILya

    I appreciate that coming from you. :)
     
    Ha.. stop being a politician.

    I like the MR-4 alot (used the AMG EBR-7 all last year), but think the MIL-C would work just fine as well. I have a 4-16 ATACR and really prefer the entire ocular that rotates.. it's a ton of real estate for hunting or high stress shooting. I also agree the ATACR turret seems to be well thought out in terms of size, readability and number size, etc. 35X seems like a nice bonus as well.

    I think your Minox turrets are by far the best I've seen.. seems to be some inconsistencies there as others have mentioned.

    might just have to stick with the AMG for now.

    thanks again.

    You know, I actually thought about it all morning. I think in the end, I'd end up keeping the Razor.

    The reason being that as I get older, my goals have started to change, and the idea of spending less on my hobby and putting a down payment on some land in the middle of nowhere and building a little cabin is starting to sound REALLY good.

    I think ILya said it best. If you're ok with the weight, the Razor really is an incredible value. The TT is the closest scope I've ever seen that I would call perfect minus the reticle but it comes at a high price.

    All the other scopes are absolutely incredible and if I had to chose one of those three, it would be the one that tracked the best and had my favorite reticle.

    As a response to your statement on the 4-16... I love mine. So much scope in such a little package. :)
     
    All the other scopes are absolutely incredible and if I had to chose one of those three, it would be the one that tracked the best and had my favorite reticle.

    Very nice write up. I own both the S&B 5-25 with the GenII XR and the NF 7-35 with MIL-C. I am super happy with both but the 7-35 with the MIL-C is really the one that I enjoy the most for the reason mentioned by you. The only point of disagreement with your evaluation that I have is with the turret ranking. I like my NF better than my S&B DT. It is more ergonomic and much easier to read which is a huge plus. The second rev indicator is not a huge drawback as I can use the horizontal hash marks to know where I am pretty easily.

    I really need to make a trip to EuroOptic and check out the TT. It always is in the back of my mind every time I purchase a new scope. However, I just can't rationalize the price - benefit tradeoff even though I completely understand that at a certain level of performance, small improvements cost exponentially more.
     
    You know Nik, I agree with you on the NF turret being easier to read. The lines on the S&B feel a little thick and close together. I prefer the S&B because of that indicator. It feels like an added bonus to me.

    But the NF turrets do have one advantage that I really prefer in that you can set the zero stop anywhere you want.

    In truth, one day I’ll prefer one over the other. It goes back and forth. It’s a tough choice.
     
    No wonder that all the scopes mentioned ( apart from the Vortex?)as being so similar in performance and specification, all come from the same designer.
     
    Dave:

    Thanks for the review!! Really nice to read a direct comparison of some of the popular top tier scopes. I think it really shows how competition in the market has forced the various companies to step up their game........as evidenced by how close they all performed.
     
    But the NF turrets do have one advantage that I really prefer in that you can set the zero stop anywhere you want.

    I keep forgetting about that one...it is definitely a super cool feature for me since I zero at 200 or 300 yards and it gives me enough to go back to 100 yards.
     
    Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

    I've had the ZP Tac with MP4 reticle for just under 12 mths. I've previously owned a N'force 4-16 F1, Steiner TX5i 3-15 and have had access in the past to Vortex Gen 11 Razors. S&B PMII, Premier, March, Kahles etc but rarely at the same time and rarely side by side.

    For me personally I prefer the centre dot type reticles so this excluded most offerings apart from the Kahles and Minox at the time of purchase.

    I liked the 4-16 F1 Nightforce but ultimately moved it on for a number of reasons;

    * The re-zero/zero stop mechanism is overly complicated and combined with the initial release of dinky little cheese like philips screws on the mechanism and the time needed to re-zero if moving across rifles it became a chore
    * A number of times I thought I had it re-zeroed only to find out it hadn't meaning I had to unf%$k myself throughout the course of a competition by mentally keeping track of the difference and adding and subtracting it to elevation settings (this was certainly user error compounded by having very little time to prep and test gear before a comp)
    *The Steiner T5Xi was brighter in low light, had easier turrets to reset, and had better sorted illumination control.
    *The N'force illumination at its lowest setting is still too bright. We had a stage at 800m with a red laser shone onto the middle of an IDPA torso and a small LED torch illuminating the target. Both dug into the dirt around 10m in front of the target. 100m zero on the rifle, nil light, move forward, dial elevation and send a round. The N'force illumination washed out the aiming point. (an unusual situation however it's one stage I like to include in a course of fire)
    *Mil R reticle not my favourite.
    *Rotating ocular - add me to the 'not a fan' list.








     
    Awesome, Dave. Thanks!

    a quick note on the TT tunneling. It isn’t tunneling. I had the same concern when I first got mine. But if you look closely, what you’re seeing isn’t tunneling, i.e. your sight picture isn’t traveling “through” the tube of the scope body without the actual image “zooming”. What you’re seeing is the outer circle of the reticle. That ring is the reticle. And when you zoom in, you are actually zooming into your target. When you do so, you are also zooming into the reticle, which makes that ring disappear because it’s FFP. So... weird? Yes. But not tunneling. You are getting a full 5x and when you adjust the mag ring the scope is actually zooming in.
     
    Excellent write-up Dave, thanks a ton! I've been wanting exactly such a review, except with a Kahles included. I have the Vortex, had a TT 525P but sold it (didn't like Gen2XR and got naseous at the thought of $4300 tied up in one scope), had an ATACR 5-25 SFP but sold it (loved the turrets, hated the rotating ocular bell) and have been curious about the Minox. I've been considering the Kahles as I think I would love the parallax adjustment and SKMR3 reticle, but the Minox will be considered for my next scope. Thanks again for such an informative and unbiased writeup.
     
    hk dave Excellent write up, thanks mate. As someone who is months deep on the wait for a Minox MR4 to turn up this isn't helping :)
     
    Great write up for sure, very helpful, I just ordered the NF ATACR 7-35, can’t wait for it to get here!
     
    Great write up Dave.
    I didn't know the minox was such a great scope. Would be cool to get behind one.
    I'm currently running the atacr 7-35 and the 5-25 on my rigs after switching from the gen 2 razors.
    but as you said and others the razor really is the best value.
    I think the main reason I switchedis because I've always wanted a "nightforce" lol
     
    Great write up Dave.
    I didn't know the minox was such a great scope. Would be cool to get behind one.
    I'm currently running the atacr 7-35 and the 5-25 on my rigs after switching from the gen 2 razors.
    but as you said and others the razor really is the best value.
    I think the main reason I switchedis because I've always wanted a "nightforce" lol

    I'm actually thinking of getting back into a gen 2 Razor myself. I really liked my first one but sold it because of the weight, but the rifle it would sit on is a pig anyway sooo...
     
    Great review. I have opportunity to frequently use (with the exception of the TT) all of the scopes reviewed & agree wholeheartedly with Dave's assessment. I know the effort he put in for such an all encompassing evaluation represents a ton of work. His commitment & enthusiasm to share his expertise & clearly articulate his thoughts so that we all benefit from his broad range of alpha scope experience is certainly appreciated. Thank you.
     
    Great review and very timely for me ... only scope on my list not in the review is the Kahles 6-24x (either AMR or SKMR3) ... but this is VERY useful thanks!!!!

     
    Awesome review Dave. I’ve been looking at Reticle design a lot and the Minox comments help.
     
    Great write-up! Thanks! Sounds like as soon as TT puts an MR4 reticle in their 5-25, I'm selling my firstborn to buy one. In the meantime my SWFA 5-20 HD will have to suffice.
     
    Great write-up! Thanks! Sounds like as soon as TT puts an MR4 reticle in their 5-25, I'm selling my firstborn to buy one. In the meantime my SWFA 5-20 HD will have to suffice.

    i REALLLLLLY wish this would happen...either the MR4 or the ebr7b would be tits
     
    • Like
    Reactions: patriot07
    Based in part on this review, I went with a NF ATACR 7-35x tremor-3. Second place was Kahles 6-24 SKMR4 and it was close ... third place for Minox 5-25x MR4 ... fourth place TT 5-25x gen2xr.

    NF has the edge on resolution and the reticle I wanted, turrets are a little tall and 8x FOV restricts FOV more than I'd like. Turrets are a little tall for my application. I trust the NF Brand.
    Kahles the reticle might be the best for my app. less over all data available, though I know two people who like them.
    Minox, contender for "as good as a TT" though the turrets seem less consistent. The reticle is good, but I like the Kahles more.
    TT - the best at everything, except the reticle and at 35x the NF edges it out in resolution.

    If TT had a better reticle, I think I would've gone with it.
    Once Kahles and Minox get more data on record, I could go with them.

    Thanks again to the OP for this review - it was perfect timing for me !!!

    ==
    My requirements were:
    01 - Do everything my current Burris xtr2 can do on .300WM(24)
    02 - Support .50bmg(32) ELR matches
    03 - Double as a day spotter better than any of my current day scopes (high resolution)

    And TBH all of the contenders would work.

    ==
    Oh and I purchased from CS Tactical. Thanks for the support !!!
     
    Add a Kahles to that lineup and there's my scope bucketlist. I agree that Minox seems to have the best reticle selection right now, MR2 is my absolute favorite among the tree-style reticles and MR5 seems like an improvement over the MSR. I went with a S&B for my first high end, but definitely going with a Minox next.
     
    What a great contribution to the community Dave. As one who has done a number of scope reviews myself, I understand the considerable effort it is to test accurately, write everything up, get pics and all that and put it all together to be a benefit for others, so thank you very much for doing this. As most everyone knows it is not easy to go down to a local shop in most parts of the US and find even one of these scopes reviewed here. While many may not be able to afford this tier level of scopes (there was a day not long ago when I swore I would never need a scope that cost more than about $600) it is good to know what they are capable of.

    For those of you asking about the Kahles 624i, I had one of the first with the SKMR reticle. I would say this, it is every bit as capable as the other scopes that Dave reviews here, you will not be disappointed with it. The Kahles has the unique top turret parallax which is pretty cool and easy for left/right hand shooters. My two top tier scopes in my safe right now are a Minox ZP5 5-25x56 and a Vortex AMG 6-24x50, but I've had a couple Schmidt's, the Kahles, US Optics and others so not quite as high as the lineup Dave has had experience with, but certainly enough to know what you're missing compared to the lower end.

    So what are you missing with the lower end or rather lower cost scopes. As a professional photographer for over 20 years I am pretty stingy when it comes to optics, before I shot professionally I bought a Tamron 28-200 lens and thought it was the bomb, what more could I ever need, it covered the full zoom range that consisted of 90% of my photography at the time, but then a I bought a Canon 300 f/4 and holy smokes what a difference, then I bought a 70-200 f/2.8 and so on and so forth. Here's the thing, you don't know what you're missing until you try it. But here's another point to make, if you are satisfied with what you have, then why bother with something more expensive? Here in the US we get all caught up with "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality which is prompted by the continual barrage of marketing. Did you buy an HDTV a few years ago and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, but now you walk into the store and see the "new" 4k or OLED TV's and think "wow, I really need one of those"? Here's the thing, if you just got into the sport and bought an 8-32 Tasco because you thought 32x magnification would get you what you need, you need to do a lot more reading on the Hide and talking with other shooters; however, if you bought a used Bushnell ET 3.5-21x50 from the classifieds for $700 and have been able to hit your mark at distance, then will one of these top tier scopes help you to do any better? Granted if your scope can't track worth a dime, then you need a change, but if it can track and you can dial it accurately and quickly and get your crosshairs on target, breathe, squeeze and drop that bullet accurately with the scope you already have then there is no "need" for you to change. But most of us seek out change, not because of "need" but because of "want", we want the latest TV or car or whatever.

    Great, now that we have that in perspective, why does any scope cost more than any other and the answer is usually in the design, materials used and overall quality. In the optics world, what you're mostly paying for is high end glass. Why does a 70-200 f/2.8 lens cost 10x the amount of a 24-200, well, take a picture with both using a high quality DSLR and you'll quickly see, the glass and mechanics of the 70-200 f/2.8 are far superior to the cheap super zoom lenses. Like Dave has already eloquently written up in the above review, these scopes represent the best of the best when it comes to glass quality and mechanics. Even though the Razor Gen II is $2000 less than his TT, he does mention there are some qualities about the other scopes that are better than the Gen II; however, he doesn't say he feels the Gen II is unusable, in fact, quite the opposite. So glass quality alone is not the end all be all of hitting your target, after all, we're not using scopes to count the hairs on a gnat at 100 yards, or to look at distant galaxies, there are other optics designed for those purposes. A riflescope is a tool and that tool should allow us to get a hit on a target at distance as quickly and efficiently as possible.

    I think Iyla put it best when he said "pick a reticle you like and roll with it." That is good advice, Dave already said if a manufacturer can't make a scope that can track accurately and hold up mechanically then something is wrong in this day and age, it's not rocket science and even if it was, we've already been to the moon and that was almost 50 years ago! I agree with Dave, I think we kind of live in the golden age of optics and if you're young and just getting into the sport there is so much for you to choose from than what some of us older guys had to choose from in years past, you don't need the best of the best in order to succeed in this sport, regardless if you shoot on the PRS circuit or like to shoot the tops off cattails at 1150 yards on your grandpa's farm, choose the right tool for the job and you will succeed. There will always be guys driving Porsche's and Ferrari's, but guess what, a Ford can get you to work just the same, it may not be as sleek, stylish and cool, but it gets you where you want to go :)
     
    Some folks have mentioned the Kahles K624i. A couple years back I did a comparison review between a Gen2 version of it, an S&B 5-25, Steiner Military 5-25, NF 5-25 F1 and Razor Gen2. (This comparison review was lost with the Scout site)

    I remember every aspect of that scope being top notch. The only problem I had with it was that it had considerable CA. Other's have said that with the Gen3 version, they fixed much of it. Haven't looked through one so I don't know for certain.

    I can say that I feel the Kahles k624i and Steiner Military are two more scopes that I think are absolutely awesome and in my eyes they sit in good company amongst the others I reviewed here.
     
    Last edited:
    Some folks have mentioned the Kahles K624i. A couple years back I did a comparison review between a Gen2 version of it, an S&B 5-25, Steiner Military 5-25, NF 5-25 F1 and Razor Gen2. (This comparison review was lost with the Scout site)

    I remember every aspect of that scope being top notch. The only problem I had with it was that it had considerable CA. Other's have said that with the Gen3 version, they fixed much of it. Haven't looked through one so I don't know for certain.

    I can say that I feel the Kahles k624i and Steiner Military are two more scopes that I think are absolutely awesome and in my eyes they sit in good company amongst the others I reviewed here.

    I agree Dave, the Kahles I had also showed considerable CA; however, it was a Gen III version so not sure about how much better it was than the Gen II. CA aside, the scope had incredible resolution and great contrast. I know I've harped on CA (chromatic aberration for those just joining, which shows color fringing between high contrast, dark/light, situations) and expect top tier scopes to control this aberration better, but the reality is that CA will not hinder in any way your ability to hit a target, and to be honest most shooters don't even notice it.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: gunn317 and Dburns