Guys,
how you can compere Kahles 2.5-10x50C to Nikon 2.5-10x50.
My hunting; typical North American hunting 1/2 before and after, shooting max 500yr.
I am looking to buy a scope for 9.3x64 and I am tight with cash now, can't afford expensive Zeiss or Swarovski.

Any comment welcome.

It's probably obvious to others, but which Nikon model are you wanting to compare to the Kahles?

Nikon Monarch Gold, their top of the line model

I have a Monarch Gold and it is a fine scope, but I am still partial to the Zeiss Conquest line, and they are priced similarly.

The Kahles C 30mm 2.5x10x50 at $1,200.00 is expensive and compares favorably with the Zeiss and Swarovski 30mm scopes. It has a 43.5' FOV and would be an excellent scope.

The Nikon Monarch Gold 2.5x10x50 at $700.00 would also be an excellent scope, just not as good as the Kahles, IMO.

I have had 3 Kahles and still have 2 of them. They have all been great scopes. Can't speak for the Nikons. But, with a decent FOV at 38.8' and a side focus it would be a better deal.

Generally speaking, I think the Kahles are just a bit sharper than the Nikons. The only head to head I have done between the two brands was a pair of 2-7's. The Kahles won by a pretty fair margin.

Having said that though, I like my Monarch Gold 2.5-10x50 a LOT. I think the differnce between the two amounts to the Kahles being sharper and brighter while the MG has a longer and MUCH more friendly eye relief.

I have several Nikons from their different lines, and they are hard to beat. The quality is excellent especially given what you pay for them, and I wouldn't trade them for anything in a comparable or lesser line. But they aren't Zeiss, Kahles, et cet. I think it's really just a question of what $$$ amount makes sense for you at the time you are buying the scope. With some extra dollars available, move on up. If $$$ are an issue, stick with the Nikon and know that you have an excellent scope that will do almost everything the Kahles would have.

LWD

P.S. you can always upgrade later.

LWD, You are right.
I can always upgrade later.
For some reason I like the Nikon. I have seen, but never own it. My scopes are either Zeiss or Elite4200, but want to buy something different.

How is the cross on Nikon, is it as bad as ELite4200 or laser engraved type like Zeiss?

Thanks

I would go with the Kahles from the choices given, but I really like Zeiss Conquests. In my opinion, they are hands down the best glass for the money.

I've used both of the referenced scopes. IMO the Kahles is a better scope out of the two but they are overpriced and not worth the extra compared to the MG. Right now the MGs can be found on ebay for great deals with some going for just over 500US.

I will agree with the others, I like the Conquest better than either. The Conquest has become my favorite scope in that price range.

Good Luck

Reloader

quote:

How is the cross on Nikon, is it as bad as ELite4200 or laser engraved type like Zeiss?

I'm not sure how it's made. I've not had any mechanical problems with mine or any problems seeing it.

LWD

Have a look at IOR scopes.
Jim

I have had extensive experience with IOR products and currently use two of their scopes and a pair of bino's. Excellent stuff, and great customer service. One of the scopes is the 2.5-10 with MP8 reticle. Very useful scope with great optics. I also have a couple Zeiss Conquest scopes. As much as I like my IOR's, In side-by-side comparison I find the Zeiss to be superior in low light. My future scopes will be Zeiss Conquest.

Something I've been curious about is how much of the 'light gathering' capability is the individual's perception or the ability of their M-1 eyeball.
I've got a a Leopold 3.5 - 10 AO, 25 or more years old, that if there's the least of light, sliver of the moon I can see.
Jim

I don't know if this is considered spam- if so please remove it. I have a sales flyer for Natchez shooting supply- Monarch gold 2.5-10x50 - $479.95. Hope that saves you some bucks- I would check the Nikon web for more info, they have multiple products, and it doesn't look like this on has the side focus.

Len Hawkins

A couple other items you may want to consider in deciding between the Nikon Gold 2.5-10x50 and the Hella C 2.5-10x50. The Nikon is fairly Heavy at 21.2 ounces whereas the corresponing Kahles is only 17.3 ounces. By comparison a Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 1" tube is 16 ounces. With the Kahles you get a bigger objective and a stronger 30mm tube with only a 1.3oz weight gain over the Elite 4200. The Nikon has a much larger weight penalty.
Both have good reticles available but you might make sure that the ones on the great deal price are the ones with a reticle you like.
Also with the new Swaro Z-6's coming out you might be able to find a used PH for a better price than you could before.
Just a few thoughts.......................DJ

I had several scopes in for a comparison, including Kahles Helia and a Nikon Monarch Gold. The Kahles was mine, and the Nikon MG was a loaner. These were all 1.5-6X40 (nominal size).

I never could get the Nikon to focus to suit me. I didn't have any trouble with Leupold (VXIII and VariX III), S&B, and Zeiss (VM/V not Conquest).

I have to admit that I would stick with the 40 mm objective scopes, I don't see a need for a 50 mm for the hunting you describe -- unless there is something I am not noticing (sure could be!). I don't shoot the 9.3X64, but I have shot a flock of .375s under a variety of conditions.

jim

I love my Kahles scopes, have 2 and love them both.

You should be horsewhipped for even using Nikon and Kahles in the same sentence!

quote:

Originally posted by Don Slater:
You should be horsewhipped for even using Nikon and Kahles in the same sentence!

Why???
Wasn't Germans alone who have performed test and it came that Nikon Gold has better light transmission at night and day as well, compare to expensive European scopes, where our Leopold was dead last or almost last in tests.

I would like to know what is actual experience between two, and so far no one mentioned that one is first focus plane and second is not, which in my opinion makes a difference, especially at last hour of a hunt.

Anyway, I need personal experience and that is all. Normally I would buy Swarovski 2.5-10x42, but my wallet is not as thick as I thought.

Another scope I am considering is Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5x38. I will be little bit underpowered, but that is OK, if the optics are great I can go for it.

As for Elite 4200, I still have 5 or 6 of them on my rifles and I say they are truly great scopes, however, I went through all of them and do not want to buy another one.

Thanks

Yep, Pete. I like all the quality stuff made in the Philippines!

quote:

I have several Nikons from their different lines, and they are hard to beat. The quality is excellent especially given what you pay for them, and I wouldn't trade them for anything in a comparable or lesser line. But they aren't Zeiss, Kahles, et cet. I think it's really just a question of what $$$ amount makes sense for you at the time you are buying the scope. With some extra dollars available, move on up. If $$$ are an issue, stick with the Nikon and know that you have an excellent scope that will do almost everything the Kahles would have.

That gives the story in a nutshell as we generally have a lot of lee-way in hunting as opposed to target shooting.

Kahles has recently announced a new line in riflescopes, the KX series, designed for the American market with 1-inch tubes. They are ... Helia KX 3-9 x 42, KX 3,5-10 x 50 and KX4-12 x 50. Since 1898 Kahles has been setting the trend in innovation and optical performance as a dedicated scope manufacturing company - more than a century - and that says a lot.

It seems R&D in lens coatings carry on unabated and we benefit from it every 10 years or so, albeit at higher prices. Mention is made in recent ads by all the major manufacturers of improvements they have made. Some are just better than others and Leupold is playing catch up to Austrian & German lenses. Most say that even the Nikon lenses are brighter than Leupold lenses, and that at a lower price point.

Kahles scopes are a notch lower in price than Zeiss, Swaro and S&B and that certainly provides for excellent value for money. One thing is for sure, the edge-to-edge clarity of the Kahles is excellent, it gives a wide field of view and light transmission is very good in low light conditions, whilst eye relief is fair at 3.6 inches. That is why I bought one - the model that pre-dates the new KX model. I have been very happy with it.

I like the 4A reticle of the Khales a lot. I never liked the Leupold reticles. At least Leupold realized a while back (after decades) that hunters prefer the Wideplex reticle as it gives one more of the target. I bought a new Leupold VX2 scope 3-9x40 Wideplex for a low mounting application. It fits my rifle very well, aesthetically pleasing, as I wanted at least 5.6 inches of ring spacing (most scopes offer less than 5.6 inches) without being big and bulky. It is a good one and I like it for its purpose, but the lenses of the Kahles really out-shine it by comparison.

Warrior

Here is good reading for those who know German

http://www.riflescope.de/PDF/Visier0406.pdf

Nobody has pointed out that Kahles and swaro are in fact sister companies, the only difference between the two scopes is the design of the erector tube springs and levers, same body, same glass, same turrets..
similar price..
I have had Kahles,leupold,burris,B&L not one of them was a patch on the Kahles, never had a Nikon so can't compare.
Buy the kahles it will last a lifetime and will still be worth something in years to come..

regards
griff

quote:

Originally posted by Don Slater:
stuff made in the Philippines!

Buckmasters are made in the Philippines. Monarch Golds are made in Japan.

Gabe

Thanks for your help.
I have ordered Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5x38 with Z-plex cross hair.

It shall be enough for my 9.3x64.

Again, thanks for all the comments.

Peter