Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Kimber Montana, 300WSM Scope |
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Author | |
Cajun Hunter
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/20/2007 Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
yea, we are recovering from Mardi Gras. The seafood industry will be booming for the next month or so with Lent.
|
|
djpaintles
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 12 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have a few Kimber 8400's. On my Montana 325 WSM I have a Swaro 3-10x42 AV TDS which IMHO is about the perfect scope for this rifle and would be also for one in 300 WSM. The TDS reticle works quite well for 300 WSM's and 180gr bullets, I've used them on a couple. You may be able to still find a 3-9x40 Kahles AH TDS around and that would also fit just about perfect. I've use Swaro 4-12x50's on a couple other 8400's, they look a little large but I like the 4-12's for 270 WSM's. On a Montana I would strongly reccommend Talley lightweight rings. They are just about perfect for the rifle. The 4-12x50 AV's will fit in low talley QR rings or the kimber bases and low leupold rings. I wouldn't use a 50mm scope that I had to use medium rings for on a 8400, they cheek weld just about perfect in lows. Good luck with your 300 WSM!..........................DJ
|
|
Cajun Hunter
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/20/2007 Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
How would you compare the Kahles AH against the Swaro? |
|
djpaintles
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 12 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I prefer the Swaro somewhat but whether or not the small differences are worth the extra cost of the Swaro is up to you. Both are excellent scopes.....................DJ
|
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
dj, FWIW, there are several folks here who own the new Kahles CL that have owned the Swarovski AV series and in their opinion they thought the CL was better optically and approching the optics of the Swarovski PH series. The Kahles KX scopes are supposed to have the same optics as the CL series.
Edited by Roy Finn |
|
djpaintles
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 12 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The new Helia CL's are as or more expensive than the Swarovski AV's one would expect them to be at least equivelant optically. I was comparing them to the older American hunter series. There's talk of the AV's being discontinued, maybe that they are going to be improved so that they might better compete with the sister scopes from Kahles. In the end I';m more than happy to hunt with either brand but tend to prefer Swarovski if for no other reason than their warrantee. Supposedly a broken Swaro scope will be fixed here in the US and a Kahles is likely to have to return to Austria.......................DJ |
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
dj, I guess I should have made it clearer that the new Kahles KX is priced basically the same as the older AH series but they have the same optics as the more expensive CL series. Only issue I have heard from the folks here was because the new CL/KX have larger ocular assemblies, folks mounting them on some bolt rifles have run into clearence issues.
|
|
djpaintles
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/22/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 12 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I was glad to see the return of the popular priced series from Kahles. I thought the Multi-zero was a kludge, our local dealers commented to me that the hadn't sold a single one! I haven't had a chance to look at the KX series yet but plan to...................................DJ
|
|
Cajun Hunter
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/20/2007 Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think the larger ocular is a good thing, from what I have heard. I wonder if that is a problem with the Kimbers. |
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
rifle dude - i can actually tell a noticable difference between 40mm and 50mm's in the lowlight DURING legal time.
i hunt 1 hour before and 1 hour after legal sunup's and down's. That 10mm goes a long way in the dark. IMO.
THAT is why i hunt 50-56mm's on my big guns. It makes me a more responsible lowlight shooter.
my 2 cents. good choice on the kahles - let us know how she does!!!
J |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I can too, but only when using the highest magnifications of a scope topping out at above, say, 10X, which doesn't apply to the typical low-power scopes I prefer for deer rifles. On high quality 1.5-6X, 2-7X, and 3-9X scopes, you already have way more light transmission than your eyes can really use on most power settings anyway with the 40mm objective, without the disadvantages in FOV, weight, cost, and cheek weld associated with the larger objective sizes. Again, assuming you're using high quality optics to begin with. If you can tell a difference, then your eyes are better than mine...which is entirely possible. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
you are quite correct, RD.
my eyes, on a good day, can only digest 7mm of light (if that) exit pupil.
i usually keep my scopes set on 7 power, to match my binos.
and the exit pupil of 5.71 (50mm) -vs- 8 (56mm) is a noticable change for my eye (30 yrs old).
i don't have near the experience as some of the folks on this forum, but i am an avid collector and have had the pleasure of using some fine optics over the past 16+ years.
i would LOVE to have more highend stuff. (i accept donations , shamelessly) but i feel like i have had a great deal of field experience w/ the 300-800 dollar beauties often mentioned on this forum. Nikons, Elite 4200's, Conquests, kahles (1300 bucks), meostar, and a few other lesser scopes. with special attention for the lowlight performance (ie. dark swamps, and thick hardwoods 1 hour after sundown)
good posts as always. keep up the good work.
J
|
|
twofer
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/13/2006 Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I just finished mounting a Kahles CL 3x9 - 42mm with a 4A reticle on my Kimber Montana in 300 WSM using Talley one-piece lightweight low mounts. IMHO, it is aesthetically a perfectly balanced rig. Functionally, I like how my eye naturally falls in line with the scope when I mount the rifle.
The Kimber's bolt handle just clears the Kahles' ocular (not enough room to use the flip-up ocular scope cap that came with the scope, though). I don't like fiddling with the flip-up scope covers in the field, anyway.
I was going to mount my Burris Signature 4x16 - 50mm on the Kimber, but that 50mm objective bell looked out of place to my eye on the sleek Kimber.
I have had a few range sessions with the rifle, and can't comment on hunting performance or low light performance.
At least during daylight, I have found that the optics of the Kahles are so good that I don't need the increased magnification of the Burris to see the .30 cal holes in the target at 100 yds. (and consequently don't need the 50mm objective the increased magnification would necessitate).
I should point out that I am not a fan of the tactical reticles. Too much clutter in the sight picture, IMO. The simplicity of the 4A reticle fits the way my 47-year-old brain processes a sight picture best, especially under hurried shooting situations.
Less is more.
Just my opinion on an admittedly subjective topic.
--twofer
Edited by twofer |
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
good to hear - the kahles is a fine choice.
let us know how she does in the lowlight.
J |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Although I don't have any experience with the new CL or KX scopes... yet, I would not hesitate to buy any Kahles scope sight unseen, based solely on my previous favorable experiences with Kahles products.
|
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Great choice twofer. Kahles is one of my favorite companies, they are one of a few at the top of my list for best bang for the buck. |
|
Cajun Hunter
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/20/2007 Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Excellent feedback. Did you go with a multizero or not on the CL?
|
|
twofer
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/13/2006 Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Cajun Hunter - I went with the non-Multizero. Once I find the most accurate loading for the Kimber, I will not be shooting anything else. I feel that I will get the best performance from the rifle by knowing this one accurate loading really well. Since I will be shooting only one loading from the rifle, I have no need for the Multizero feature.
I understand, though, how others may need/want to set their rifle up to shoot a few different loadings and would benefit from the Multizero feature of the Kahles scope.
Just my two centavos.
--twofer |
|
Cajun Hunter
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/20/2007 Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Why did you go with the CL and not the KX or was this prior to the KX launch?
|
|
twofer
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/13/2006 Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Cajun Hunter - I bought my Kahles CL before the KX was availalbe. If the optics, etc., of the KX were the same as the CL, I would probably get the KX if buying today (I would do a side-by-side comparison before making a final decision). I am starting to think that the adjustable parallax of the CL is not all that beneficial in a 3x9 power scope for my use, which is a "do everything from antelope to deer to elk to moose to bear" rifle.
Regardless, I am very happy with my Kahles CL 3x9-42!! Unless I win the lottery, I will to use this scope for the rest of my hunting days. Edited by twofer |
|
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |