Thread: New scope, thanks mate!

Have had my faithful Leupold VX3HD 2.5-8x36 for some time on my mostly bush rig which has served me well.

Ol Mate then turns up on our Roar trip with a new sparkly Khales scope in 1.6-8x42. The glass is mint, good robust scope but what really got me was the extra field of view the 42 gave, especially for my aging eyes!!

Question for the team if I entertain the growing need to look at a new scope, what's peoples experience with the likes of the Khales in 2-10x42 for scopes? One on the list is also the VX5HD in 2-10x42 which still looks reasonably compact.

Cheers in advance.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

It's not just the 42... It's the lower 1.6 be aware the aging eyes do come into it eventually. I have always been happy enough with field of view on a 3x9 x40... The 50 gives no more. Fixed four and fixed 3 are great but the 1.5-4 shits all over them all for field of view... Swings n roundabouts as get out past hundy yards and higher magnification helps on smaller animals ( was on 9x for fourty pound pigs today) yes can get away with less on bigger animals. Kahles make nice glass.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

It's not just the 42... It's the lower 1.6 ... The 50 gives no more. ..

and the diameter of the ocular lens is a major factor in FOV.

Im kinda fond of Kahles scopes, the clarity and feild of view is bloody amazing. Ive got 3 of the 1.5-6 and find them so easy to use. Having said that, the VX5 has some pretty impressive numbers. I would suggest you take a good look through both scopes, preferably on a dull day, and then make your choice, dont think you will go wrong with either.

Originally Posted by 6x47

and the diameter of the ocular lens is a major factor in FOV.

All I know is counting fence palings at thirty yards,there is fook all in it until I drop magnification.

I've got both a Khales KX 3-9x42 and the VX3HD 3-10x40 and they are both really good scopes. picking up a Khales you might be lucky. you should have bought Buzzmann's that was really good buying for a quality scope. but you wouldn't be disappointed with either. Khales has a 25mm tube VX3 has 30mm

I ended up with 2 Kahles sold one so I can get a dail scope, they have very good glass clear as


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What did you hang onto Bman?
Almost asked if you’d see the Kahles cross Tasman . I have a few and rate them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My Kahles 4-12x50 is an amazing scope. People in here will know the high quality these scopes have.
For me it’s the best for clarity and weight plus is very robust.
My next scope will be Kahles as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a 3-9x Kahles Helia and replaced it with a similar vintage 3-9x Zeiss Conquest. Must say I prefer the Zeiss for clarity and function.

Originally Posted by Dicko

What did you hang onto Bman?
Almost asked if you’d see the Kahles cross Tasman . I have a few and rate them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sold a kx 3-9 and keep a heila 3-9 for my sons 223


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the reply guys.

How do you find the cross hair on the Khales Helia, not to light/ fine compared to a Leupold for example? Mindful of light at times when in the thick stuff.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by 6x47

and the diameter of the ocular lens is a major factor in FOV.

Optic length (inferring focal length) has a much larger effect.

Go look at binoculars and you will find most 8x32s have a wider FOV than most 8x42s as they are typically shorter.

Objective has a larger effect on light gathering but thats about it.


EDIT: Never mind misread ocular as objective but neither lens diameter makes a big difference. The ocular end being larger make it seem larger like a large screen TV but the FOV is the same.

Originally Posted by Jaybe

Thanks for the reply guys.

How do you find the cross hair on the Khales Helia, not to light/ fine compared to a Leupold for example? Mindful of light at times when in the thick stuff.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

The A4 reticule on the Helia I had was great. Reasonably fine center for precision but very thick outers easier to see in low light and for quick shooting.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Optic length (inferring focal length) has a much larger effect.
....Never mind misread ocular as objective but neither lens diameter makes a big difference. The ocular end being larger make it seem larger like a large screen TV but the FOV is the same.

Well, I had a scope that clearly defied that. It was a Pentax 4x32 which was long but had an exceptionally big ocular lens to the point of making mounting a pain for bolt handle clearance. It had the biggest FOV of anything I'd ever looked through by a wide margin.