Kahles K624i

[Timb0]

A month ago I was looking at some Nightforce scopes when I noticed a Kahles K624i next to them. Looking at it in the shop I was quite impressed.

Does anyone have any feed back from owning or using one?

I'm not sure but the one I looked at seemed to have a slightly different reticle to what they show on the web site. Have they changed since being released?

[brett1868]

Appropriate this thread is posted today, I just spent half an hour on the phone to Mark at NightForce in the U.S trouble shooting problems I have with 2 scopes.

The issues I have relate to point of impact shift with only 2-3 minutes of elevation dialed in. I will try a few suggestions he made and if no joy the scopes will be returned to Adelaide for checking / replacement without hesitation. I also have been eying the Khales 624i scopes and it's high up on my list of items to purchase but I'll be checking out their support before buying as I doubt they can match the responsiveness shown by NightForce. I tend to judge businesses by how they deal with complaints / issues and their willingness to support customers and based on ths mornings conversation I'll be continuing down the NightForce path a little longer.

Back to topic, the reticles on the Khales like the Nightforce come in a few varieties so check their website and see what suits you and your style of shooting. I personally like the M.O.A.R & M.O.A.R.T from NightForce for the Tarticool rifles and just plain crosshairs for the practical hunting rifles.

Khales has the edge in optics quality but not sure if it's worth the extra $ over a similar spec NightForce.

[The Brass]

Kahles scopes are excellent.

I've used the K624 TT 6-24x56 with their Mil 1 reticle and it was fantastic. Couldn't fault it.

Also their Helia C 2.5-10x50 on a hunting rifle. Excellent again.

Don't know about about the reticles to really add much to that but they do vary. There are 2-3 different reticles for each scope line, some overlap and some unique to that line. Maybe you saw one from a different model? Dunno.

[bigfellascott]

How do the Kahles compare to the Swaro z3's and z6's?

[The Brass]

Honestly at that kind of level... Kahles vs Z6 and the like... There so good I have trouble finding a difference or faulting them for quality.

It's a bit Ferrari vs Lamborghini... I'd be more than happy with either

I think that one will have to come down to your eye.

[Lyam]

How do the Kahles compare to the Swaro z3's and z6's?

I've got the Z3 which was about a grand.

The Z6 is about twice the price from memory and personally I can't justify the difference, the Z3 is already so sharp.

Build quality is the same too between the two to my hands.

[bigfellascott]

Honestly at that kind of level... Kahles vs Z6 and the like... There so good I have trouble finding a difference or faulting them for quality.

It's a bit Ferrari vs Lamborghini... I'd be more than happy with either

I think that one will have to come down to your eye.

I think that's the important part. I tested my 3-9x50 Nikon Prostaff against my mate Swaro Z6i (not sure what its mag range was now) but I set them both on 9x and had a look through them and can honestly say there was SFA diff if any to my eyes I was expecting to see some sort of amazing diff but there wasn't any what I do like about the Z6 is that ballistic turret setup, very very nice indeed.

I wished I had of done a comparison between them in the fading light, maybe there would have been a noticeable diff?, next time perhaps!.

I have tested the same Nikon up against a Z3 a while back at night under torch light and there was SFA in that too, not enough to race out and buy one put it that way, certainly makes me wonder at times about these high end scopes, I'd imagine the mechanics are where the diff would be, certainly haven't seen bugger all diff looking through them so far. (Hand scratches head)

I also compared that scope to a Leupold VX3 or 4 I think it was and it had better colour rendition/clarity/brightness/sharpness to that as well, I recon the Leupold was slightly brighter under the light (only just) but again not worth racing out and buying one for the $$ and the performance.

In the photo below I was focusing on a rock at 150m away, I also focused each scope for my eyes etc.

My mate who owns the Swaros (got a heap of em as he often buys em in lots of 5 or more) he reckoned the Nikon was better than his Leica Scopes too!! now that says a lot, even he did a comparison between the Nikon and Swaro and he honestly couldn't see any real diff at all, which surprised him also but as he said he owns expensive rifles and it would look a bit silly to putting a cheap scope and an expensive rifle and he's right of course, it would seem a bit odd.

Anyway mate enjoy the Scope, nothing like having something nice to look through.

[bigfellascott]

I've got the Z3 which was about a grand.

The Z6 is about twice the price from memory and personally I can't justify the difference, the Z3 is already so sharp.

Build quality is the same too between the two to my hands.

It certainly makes you wonder at times where the $$ diff is, I assume in the internals? those BT on them are good but cost something like $200 extra those Z6i my mate have cost up around $3k from memory, not bloody cheap, I reckon it would almost be better to buy a heap of the Nikon 3-9x50's stash em away and when and if one s**ts itself just whip out another one and away ya go! you could buy a ****** of em for $3k too!

I also used his Swaro Binos with the built in rangefinder, nice glass etc only thing I didn't like was the rangefinder side of it, the numbers were hard to read and only flashed up for a few seconds before they disappeared again, I find the Vortex numbers easier to read than that one, other than that they were great to look through, easy on the eyes so they should be for the $3k price tag!

[Lyam]

It certainly makes you wonder at times where the $$ diff is, I assume in the internals?

I'm sure if you put the lenses in a science-o-meter (I'm really up to date on the names of these machines) the glass probably transmits more light or filters this or that and does all sorts of wonderful things in labs tests.

So much of that stuff means sweet FA in reality as you'll know.

[bigfellascott]

Yeah no doubt that is true mate, I would imagine that the upper end stuff would be better with the higher mag range type scopes for the long range type shooting (500m - 1000m) type stuff but as I said for the average joe shooting the average ranges we operate in most often the less expensive options do just fine.

That Nikon 3-9x50 of mine is supposed to have 98% light transmission or whatever its called and whatever the hell that really means, either way its bright enough and clear/sharp enough for my needs, if it wasn't rest assured it would have been gone long ago!

I'm glad I've been fortunate enough to have a look through these top end scopes and being able to really compare them in real world conditions with the cheaper offerings side by side in diff light conditions, otherwise I would have still believed they were better in everyway and I should own one, but I can honestly say I don't feel like I've been using inferior scopes at all certainly not after doing all the diff comparisons with the diff brands.

Maybe my eyes are fooked I don't know , what I do know is I can't see any real diff between any of em and certainly not enough diff to warrant the extra $2800 price tag that some command!

The Swaro rangefinder binos I liked the image from that, it was easy to look through and not straining on the eyes, only thing I didn't like was the number readout on em, it flashed up and was gone in a second literally and was hard to read requiring several goes to get to read the range clearly, so a little disappointing in that regard other than that they were great to use.

Each to their own of course but you often hear people say this is better than that and I often wonder if they've even compared some of those items against each other or if its just them going off what they've read or heard. I can honestly say I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes as we have been told so many times now that you need to own XYZ brand of scope as they are the best and the cheaper stuff is inferior etc etc, well it certainly hasn't panned out that way from my side by side testing of them in the field at diff times of the day and night under diff light conditions.

[Lyam]

That Nikon 3-9x50 of mine is supposed to have 98% light transmission or whatever its called and whatever the hell that really means, either way its bright enough and clear/sharp enough for my needs, if it wasn't rest assured it would have been gone long ago!

That's the kind of thing... 98% this and 94% that and whatever else the glass makers look for.

Eyeball this and that and NFI what the difference is half the time.